Coming to Peace with Psychology 1

In the first chapter of Coming to Peace with Psychology: What Christians can Learn from Psychological Science (IVP, 2010) Ev Worthington makes this point: We’re not as good at predicting human behavior as we would like to think. Science can help us. Or, the flip side, we are really great at formulating post hoc explanations (after we read scientific data) that help us think that we knew it all along (p. 28). You know, like when you get the answer of some piece of trivia, you feel you knew it all along. He provides several examples of surprising data that prove that we aren’t that good at predicting human behavior. Why is this important? We humans need help understanding our world. We don’t always make good choices even though we have massive data about humanity (biblical, experiential, etc.). So, he asks at the end of chapter one, how does psychological science relate to theology given that theology looks not to “thin slices” of large amounts of data but to Scripture?

In chapter two, Ev shows how his approach to the scripture/science relationship differs from previous attempts. He starts with the origin of the debate, makes an allusion to the Renaissance but quickly turns to the issue of counseling because it is in counseling where Christians are most concerned about whether they are receiving godly or ungodly wisdom. He points to usual suspects: secular models, rejection of Christian worldview, especially in academia, rejection of traditions and authorities. These cultural phenomena lead many Christians to be wary of liberal, free-wheeling, therapists. The call for “Christian counseling that was centered on biblically consistent beliefs and values was answered by Christians trying to integrate current counseling theories with Reformed theologies.

While there are variations on this theme, Worthington thinks one belief ties them together: Scripture and our human interpretations of it provide a clearer picture of reality than do human attempts to read general revelation. And, those disciplines that cover the nature of person (vs. “harder” sciences) have more distortion to them. Thus, there is a need to develop Christian filters to get rid of distortions in psychology.

He then singles out a few individuals who have diverse but generally favorable takes on the filter model: Robert C. Roberts, Eric Johnson, and David Powlison. Each has a different take on the problem of psychology and theology but all agree that there needs to be some critical evaluation of the underpinnings of psychological science. Interestingly, he dismisses each view (gently) for not being able to survive mainstream psychology.

Following these three, he points to three scientists who happen to be Christian: Malcolm Jeeves, David Myers, and Fraser Watts. Each, says Worthington, uses some form of a perspectivalist approach: two disciplines looking at overlapping data from different points of view (and asking different questions).

He ends the chapter saying that psychological science (Not psychotherapy) can be the bridge between science and theology–though I’m not sure he has spelled that out yet. Further, instead of just making Scripture trump (filter model) or Psychological research trump (Myer’s approach), we need a longer dialog when there seems to be conflict between Scripture and psychology.

He will take up “who do we trust during a conflict” in the next chapter.

Some thoughts. For those looking for deeper philosophy of science dialogue, you will need to look elsewhere. This is not Worthington’s focus. Rather, he wishes to give scientific endeavors some room at the table so that it can be taken seriously. To do so, he needs to show how both the filter and the separate-but-equal approaches miss the mark.

Best ice-cream ever!

As a last hurrah of summer, my family went to Lancaster to see the Joseph production at the Sight and Sound Theater. Good show. But even better was the ice-cream at Lapp Valley Farm, New Holland, PA. This is a Amish/Mennonite farm (not sure which) with little fanfare but fabulous ice-cream. If you are ever out that way, use Google maps and you can find them!

Coming to Peace with Psychology I (Review)

I’ve arrived as a blogger! No, I’m not getting paid to write and I’m not getting millions of hits each day. But I am getting a new perk. Someone has seen fit to send me complimentary books just in case I might wish to review them here. Free books! Do you know how cool that is? To an academic and book lover, it is just about the best perk ever.

[I guess this is a good time for a disclaimer. I only review books I find interesting. And even if the book comes wrapped in Ben Franklins (this one wasn't for some reason), I promise to tell you what I really feel about the book]

Today, I received Ev Worthington’s new book, Coming to Peace with Psychology: What Christians Can Learn From Psychological Science (IVP, 2010). You may be familiar with Dr. Worthington’s work on marriage enrichment, marriage and family therapy, and forgiveness. This is my first experience with him writing about the relationship of psychology and Christianity. Here are a few of his thoughts from the introduction and the enclosed “Author Q & A” about why we might need a new book on this topic:

• “In this book I will claim that we can know people better, and even know God better, by heeding psychological science.” (p. 11)
• “People have been integrating theology and psychology for years, but a vast majority of the integration has come from psychotherapists. Only a small minority of integrators have been psychological scientists…. While psychotherapists try to generalize about human nature on the basis of the clients they have seen and the models of helping they were trained in, psychological scientists measure the whole range of people–those 15 percent who were clients with some psychotherapist and about 85 percent more who are not.” (Author Q & A)

Wow. He lays down the gauntlet. The problem with previous integration has been the emphasis on anecdotes from therapists. If only we had more integration models by scientists. In fact, he is right–to a degree. Much of integration is highly theory driven. But is that bad?

[Rabbit trail: What are the common "sins" of theologian integrators? Clinician Integrators? Research Integrators? Theologians put far too much emphasis on their constructs and exegesis; clinicians put too much emphasis on "what works"; researchers put too much confidence in p values. In fact none have the corner on the market of truth. But again, Worthington's book may be very helpful. He is right that both clinicians and biblical counselors fail to interact deeply enough with psychological research. Either they dismiss scientific methods by pointing out its weaknesses or they generalize from a small data point into a grand theory even though the data cannot bear the weight of the theory.]

Let’s hear some more from Worthington about the direction of his book:

• His theses: Psychological science helps both Christians and non-Christians (a) understand God’s creation in human beings, (b) know about God more because the study of image bearers points to God, and (c) live more virtuously. (p. 13)
• So, he sees psychology as a common grace to refine us all. This is very interesting. Usually integrative literature has cited common grace as what allows humans to rightly perceive. Here, the discipline IS common grace.
• The relationship between psychology and Christianity is an “emerging marriage”– one that has possibilities of conflict and yet greater intimacy.

Finally, you might be interested in just what approach Ev Worthington will take in connecting psychology and Christianity. In the past some have described integration as a recycling project, a filter to get rid of non-Christian worldviews, a recasting effort, or a perspectival or level of explanation project. He mentions two: filter and perspectival approaches. The filter tries to have theological/biblical constructs as interpreting science. He finds this problematic. The perspectival model tries to separate the two disciplines as different ways of knowing.

So what does Worthington suggest? A new model he calls a relational approach.

That’s enough for this post. Next post I’ll make some comments on his first section (where he addresses some of the problems in previous integration by pointing to some psychological science).

When is residential treatment an option for you or someone you love?

Harvest USA, a local Philadelphia ministry,  is just about ready to unveil a new booklet that will be available for purchase via download. I wrote this last year after trying to help someone consider whether or not residential care was necessary to address an ongoing battle with sexual addiction.  They sent me an advance hard copy to preview and so I’ve included a pic of the front page on this post. Sorry, I couldn’t provide a better, color shot.

As you might expect, when a sexual addiction is discovered, confusion reigns among the addict and the family. What should they do? What does it mean? Where can he/she go to get help? Strong emotions and the nature of the crisis may lead to quick decisions. Whereas one family wants to find the best, most intensive solution, another family may try to solve the problem “in-house” with accountability from the pastor.

This is a short booklet designed to help the reader cut through some of the confusion and answer 8 key questions to help them decide whether it is necessary to seek treatment in a residency setting. The booklet concludes with a list of books and short-term and residential programs around the country.

I’ll let you know when the e-version is available for download.

Deadly Sins of Professors?

Okay, since I made note of the sins of students, it is only fair to admit the sins of the teacher. But with so many, where to start?

1. Pride. Pontification is an easy sin. We want to be seen as wise and so we use our bully pulpit to “educate” even if we don’t have a clue what we are saying

2. Laziness. Using the same material each year and expecting it to be fresh and valuable as the day it was thought up

3. Defensiveness. Every critical statement made by students isn’t the result of their psychopathology. We screw up and ought to be able to admit it

4. Jealousy. We tear down our more prolific/famous colleagues because it makes us feel less of a failure.

Others teacher sins you can think of? Be gentle

3 Deadly Sins of Students

It’s office cleaning time as the Fall semester is around the corner. I’m throwing out stuff I copied but haven’t really looked at for a while. In one stack of photocopies, I ran across an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education written by an anonymous prof entitled, “The 7 Deadly Sins of Students.”The subtitle makes his point, “Undergraduates increasingly seem to choose self-indulgence and self-esteem over self-denial and self-questioning.”

The copy isn’t great and so I can’t tell whether it was written in 2006 or 8 but it doesn’t matter, the points are still good. But here are just 3 that may relate to graduate student dangers:

1. Sloth. Putting of readings and thus getting less out of class time.

2. Greed. Pursuing degrees for what they can do for the student rather than for learning (the author is a liberal arts prof! Of course the author is for learning for learning sake!). The concern is that this motivation makes it all the more easy to excuse cheating and plagiarism.

3. Anger. The prof points out that more students challenge assignments and grades because they are consumer minded (I paid a lot for this so deserve a better grade).

I am reminded of a recent email that was sent out by a colleague. He linked to a news report of recent law school grads attacking their alma maters for not being able to get a job after graduation. Seems the students are having a difficult job securing employment after graduation and consider this a failure of their school to inform them of the difficulty they might experience. If this is true for law school, I suspect it is also true for seminaries too.

Are you considering graduate education? You may wish to think through your motives and especially ask about job opportunities. What does the market look like for graduates? What kinds of things do graduates do? Further, be sure to understand how long it takes to be able to practice your profession. In the counseling world, a grad needs thousands (3600 for LPCs in PA) of post-graduate supervised practice and pass an exam. Find out what life is like for those who are ahead of you. What secrets do they have to successfully completing their requirements?

So, watch your deadly sins this fall if you are starting school soon. Funny, I see this author published another essay entitled, “7 Deadly Sins of Professors.” For some reason I didn’t copy that one. Wonder why…

Integrating Faith and Psychology: Listening to God

Having read chapters by L. Rebecca Propst, Everett Worthington, and Siang-Yang Tan (in Integrating Faith and Psychology, IVP 2010), I am seeing an initial pattern–how important experience of God is in the development and outlook of the person–especially through the trials and tribulations of life. Worthington points to it in his work on the  topic of forgiveness (his mother was violently murdered). Propst speaks of integration as the product of her daily struggles and walk with God. Tan points to a burnout experience plus subsequent healing that led to his move toward psychology.

As one who reads and sometimes writes about the relationship between faith and psychology (and the fact that we cannot separate these two concepts–faith and psychology are always linked for everyone), I find these stories useful. They remind me that much of our practical integration is seamless and emanates from the gut. It doesn’t mean that we ought not have critical thoughts about our gut or that we ought to supply theory to our practice. But, try as we might to focus on the logic of our work, our integrative work is in the moment affective work I think.

Tan and Propst are right. You want to do good integration? Don’t make it your primary focus. “Instead, seek the Lord and his kingdom first (Matthew 6:33), and always see the bigger picture of God’s will and God’s kingdom with loving obedience to him, even as we are graced and blessed by him.” (Tan, p. 88) “Follow hard after God. Cultivate a daily habit of prayer and Bible study. As much as possible, understand and try to grasp a truly supernatural view of the universe.” (Propst, p. 64)

Let us be reminded that there is something more important than getting the right view of Christian counseling–that of knowing and being sensitive to the Spirit of God. It is possible, to be right in one’s view of psychology and theology and fail to be sensitive to the Spirit of God.

Christian lust?

As heard in a sermon last Sunday by our intern, Jomo Johnson:

We are made to lust…

The good is the enemy of the best

Ever thought of lust being a good thing before? I hadn’t. He is saying that lust is a response that humans SHOULD have but that we turn this human response from the best object (God) to a good (and then later self-serving) object (others). When we speak of this, we usually use words like burning desire for…zealous for…

Context for these comments were his thoughts on Psalm 63. David’s lust, he said, got him into this trouble (curse given him after Bathsheba was violence in his family). Lust would now get him out (properly focused on God rather than self).

Helpful thoughts for those who struggle with strong addictive urges?

Integrating Faith and Psychology: Book Notes

IVP just sent me a new (free!) book, Integrating Faith and Psychology: Twelve Psychologists Tell Their Stories (2010), edited by Glendon L Moriarty and with a foreword by Gary Collins. I’m looking forward to reading it. Each chapter is by a different psychologist and tells more of a personal story on how they came to the work they do and how their faith matured along the way. This is not a theory driven book but a group of narratives. While I very much appreciate theories of how psychology and Christianity function together, narratives sometimes provide a window into a more living integration. I might disagree with a theory but appreciate the heart behind it. Each author describes their development as a person and a professional, points to mentoring along the way, addresses key personal and philosophical tension points, mentions their experience with spiritual disciplines, and concludes with a personal letter in order to share key wise advice to those interested in the integrative  process.

I’m especially interested in reading several chapters written by those I know more closely than others: Mark McMinn and J. Derek McNeil (former professors), Jennifer Ripley, Siang-Yang Tan, Everett Worthington, Bill Hathaway (people I’ve met at conferences and whose work I appreciate), and Mark Yarhouse (influential scholar and fellow student at Wheaton College).

The foreword by Gary Collins gives a tiny window into the tensions he experienced between evangelical-fundamentalists and the profession of psychology. He first felt the tension of psychology colleagues who looked down on him for being a Christian. There were leading scholars of his day who felt that religion was the cause of most psychopathology. He notes that this view has shifted greatly and there is now much openness to spirituality within psychology (though I hasten to add this openness isn’t always felt in the Northeast United States). He then briefly mentions Jay Adams, Competent to Counsel, and the attacks he received from those Christians suspicious of psychology’s secular humanism.

I find his foreword less than helpful only in that it can only stereotype the conflict in 7 short pages (what else could he do?). But he does conclude by saying that not all the critical statements (about the integrative agenda) made by Christians were wrong and in fact many help to refine the work of Christian psychology. He lists quite a few names of those who have worked hard to build a psychology on biblical foundations. Nearing the end, he comments on a shift that happens somewhere in the late 80s and early 90s. “The integration movement began the shift to a younger, more pragmatic, less theoretical generation.” (p. 14).

I will blog here on a couple of the chapters as I make my way through the book. I’ll be looking for interesting historical threads that help me better understand some of the prominent leaders of the integrative movement.

Place and Movement in cultural narratives

Am reading Ira Berlin’s, The Making of African America: The Four Great Migrations (Viking, 2010). I’ve only finished chapter one but am taken with his way of juxtaposing place (rootedness) and movement (migration) as key narratives in the life of African American history. It is a “contrapuntal narrative,” says Berlin. Had to look that word up since I wasn’t familiar with it. It is point and counter point. Or, better, two independent, seemingly opposing melodies played together to form one new melody. In the book he covers migration from Africa to America and three other major migrations in US history. But he also notes how “place” and rootedness follow the migrants. The Barber shop, the church and other familiar places can help root the migrant in a brand new locale.

It got me thinking again about how certain cultural narratives shape our view of self, other; of God and country. Some of these narratives seem in opposition to each other. While I was reading this chapter, I was spending some time in Lancaster County, or the Amish country. All around I could see evidence of cultural narratives of these descendants of German Anabaptists:  hard work; family first; shunning beauty or technology or anything that might make one put trust in self rather than God. I would imagine that place and farming rhythms shape many of the Amish sense of identity.

What themes do you notice in your life? How much does place (geography, community, contexts) play into your sense of self? How much does movement (independence, migration, freedom, transitions) shape you? I would think that these narratives really do have a significant effect on your philosophical and theological views. I suspect that if you have lived in the same place where generations of ancestors have lived, you may be more inclined to emphasize tradition and sameness. However, if you have had a pattern of change (whether forced upon you or not) and experienced a transitory life, you might find yourself more comfortable with a flexible theology.

What do you think?