Science in Christian Perspective
Christianity and Psychology:
Contradictory or Complementary?
CRAIG W. ELL1SON
Westmont College
Santa Barbara California 93103
From: JASA 24 (December 1972): 131-134.
Psychology has grown into a giant during the 20th century. No other
age has witnessed
such intense concentration upon the nature and functioning of homosapiens. Psychological
terminology has become an integral part of the common vernacular and
psychological
concepts strongly influence contemporary thought.
Both psychology and Christianity deal intimately with the phenomenon
of man. Psychology
attempts to gather data inductively, formulate theories, and arrive
at a probablistic
and naturalistically based understanding of the human being. Christianity, as
revealed in the coherent whole of the Scriptures, proceeds deductively from the
supernatural a priori of special creation in God's image. The
psychologist generally
concentrates upon man's attitudes and behavior as they relate to each other as
empirical phenomenon, while Christianity roots these behaviors and attitudes in
the framework of man's inherent relationship and responsibility to God.
Psychology has challenged contemporary Christianity to a more
involved understanding
of men as human beings, while debunking or ignoring much of the basic Christian
system in the process. Comp lementarity be tween psychology and Christianity is
an honest investigation of the common subject matter, man, while
conflict is implied
in the necessary embrace of (antithetical) philosophical positions prior to the
accumulation of data and during interpretation of that data.
We would like to consider briefly some of these areas of conflict as
well as some
dimensions of potential complementarity.
AREAS OF CONFLICT
Content Domain
Although the root word for psychology, psuche,
originally meant "soul", modern psychology generally
rejects consideration
of any dimension except the scientifically verifiable. This is
particularly true
for the American psychological tradition. Strict adherence to the
scientific methodology
of the physical sciences has characterized the approaches of
bio-chemical reductionists
and behaviorists like John Watson and B. F. Skinner.1 While the full impact of
bio-chemical reductionism is yet to be felt, the behavioristic
approach has widely
influenced contemporary theory and therapy.
The basic behavioristic assumption is that man is
the product of environmental reinforcement patterns. Consequently, there is no
need to talk about internal psychic or spiritual realities except as
a convenient
intermediate construct which is to be considered only as a temporary equation.
An increasing number of therapists, such as J. Wolpe2 are using
behavior therapy
which is based primarily upon conditioning techniques and ignores the
consideration
of internal dynamics as valid data per se. One has only to consider derogatory
attitudes toward the para-psychological (ESP, telepathy, etc.) to realize that
even psychologists who are not strict behaviorists are firm adherents
to naturalistic
explanation of the solely empirical domain.
Complementarity between psychology and Christianity is implicit in an honest investigation of the common subject matter, man.
Adoption of this system can he criticized as potentially inadequate because it
is a closed system which precludes information from human experience that may
he metaphysically real and psychically meaningful but not empirically testable.
A further problem is that the atmosphere created is one of despair. Man becomes
hollow, the fated victim of impersonal environmental forces. His values, hopes,
concept of responsibility and purpose, self awareness, and wishes
become debunked
and are treated as irrelevant except as they are the product of environmental
input. Man, as we have known him historically, and as we still
experience awareness
of ourselves, disappears in dutiful compliance to the method.
The essential conflict with Christianity, then, stems from an over-emphasis
on empirically-oriented methodology which may result in the rejection of
valid content
because it doesn't fit the method. Such naturalistic disregard for
man's spiritual
dimension, if it really is an integral part of man's nature, produces
a truncated
understanding of man's nature. Such an approach might be expected to he long on
analysis and short on solutions.
On the other hand,Christianoity contributes unnecessarily to the conflict
over acceptable
data if
information, which complementarily fills in the Scriptural framework,
is rejected.
Ignorance of man's basic psychic and biological character presents us with an
unrealistic picture of ourselves, which does not quite match our experience of
daily living. Such data need to be retained in a more harmonious interpretative
framework, and not be rejected because they aren't strictly
spiritual. For example,
the Christian must basically accept the fact of sin as the cause of
personal and
interpersonal disruption. Given man's fallen state, one of
imperfection even after
redemption, he must seek to employ all truths at his disposal in the correction
of his condition. To suggest that everything would be corrected if
the whole world
were simply saved overlooks our need for sanctification. Consequently, we must
bring spiritual truths to bear on the personal and social conditions we face as
fallen men, while at the same time helping to meet those very real
needs of incarnate
humanity. Failure to acknowledge the interrelated needs of the whole man leaves
us bewildered and frustrated as we try to understand and help
ourselves and others
as parts of God's creation.
The Christian simply suggests that when all of truth is known, that
is, when and
if all information about man (including the non-empirical) is validly gathered,
accurately interpreted and integrated, man will be seen as a creature
fundamentally
related to God the Creator. Incorporated in that complete perspective
is an interrelationship
of psychological and spiritual realities which makes man so unique. The burden
of the proof, at this point, is upon psychological theories and
hypotheses being
presented as part of an incomplete, inductive system. Attempts to discredit the
"open" Christian system (one which incorporates both
empirical and non-empirical
dimensions in the understanding of man) must he based on a priori philosophical
differences because such conclusive attacks cannot be made purely on the basis
of probabilistic, incomplete evidence.
Philosophical Assumptions
Twentieth-century man must stand in awe at the physical and
technological achievements
produced through the application of scientific methodology. For many
however this
awe has been extended into worship of scientific objectivity. The
result has been
the debunking of any "nonobjective" experience as
valid, irrational or irrelevant.
This decision to admit only the objective, or empirically obtained
data, as meaningful
and valid knowledge is a philosophical choice which reflects a
naturalistic value
system. All psychological conclusions, particularly those about man's essential
nature, are drawn on the basis of subjective presuppositions. Even the choice
of areas and techniques for experimentation reflect subjective
preferences, non-scientific
value judgements, arid philosophical assumptions of the experimenter. The point
is that science cannot be totally objective as long as man is in the picture,
and should not he represented as such. It is more objective than any
other system
man has devised, and should be used with an awareness of initial
assumptions.
To begin one's investigation of man with acceptance of his spiritually-rooted
orgins becomes, then, an equally valid starting point.3 The test of
these initial
value preferences is in their ability to describe adequately the
essential experiences
of men, and to prescribe effective avenues for enduring personal and
interpersonal
growth.
One basic assumption which permeates contemporary social science and conflicts
with the Scriptural view of man is that man is a passive,
environmentally determined
being. While there is strong evidence which supports the influence of genetic
and environmental input upon our development as persons, complete acceptance of
this viewpoint, within the naturalistic system, forces us into
despairing fatalism.
Without the reality of the choosing self and its correlate of
personal responsibility,
we might just as well authenticate ourselves by commiting suicide
because it conceivably
is the only act of freedom available (cf. Jaspers). In effect, decisionless man
is man without responsibility, Hollow Man.
To suggest that everything would be corrected if the whole world were simply saved overlooks our need for sanctification.
Popularization of the deterministic motif has led to increasing
personal and social
irresponsibility. Indeed, William Glasser5 suggests that the basic pathology is
a failure to take responsibility; that psychological health and interpersonal
relatedness can only come as we choose and accept our momentary
responsibilities.
Viktor Frankl5 argues that meaning in life is gained only as one fulfills his
unique tasks in life. The Christian position adds that those tasks
stem from our
fundamental relationship of creature to Creator.
Failure to accept our positions as active agents capable of producing changes
as we act responsibly has resulted in increased feelings of despair
and alienation,
in which the main effort becomes an attempt to blame others for our condition.
Such projective defenses breed conflict, and the pathology of chronic
bitterness.
Certainly other people and conditions are to blame some of the time, but we are
responsible for how we accept and creatively utilize those conditions.
The hope of man is in the possibility of making decisions, and in the supreme
decision of establishing and maintaining a relationship with God. Indeed, the
very act of salvation necessitates complementary responses and responsibilities
on the part of both God and man. Living the Christian life
necessitates a responsible,
active process of "living life with a due sense of purpose, understanding
what the will of the Lord is" (Eph. 5:1517.) In this view, cause
and effect
relationships-including prior choices-influence man but do not irrevocably and
impersonally determine him. Irresponsibility becomes a choice, not a necessary
condition.
In this conception of man as an active,responsible and whole being, we find
complementarity between the Scriptures
and psychology. This is particularly so with more humanistically-oriented schools
of psychology represented by such figures as Gordon Allport,6 Viktor
Frankl,7
Rollo May,8 Erich Fromm9 and Abraham Maslow10.Complementarity of
course, does no imply agreement.
AREAS OF COMPLEMENTARITY
Three areas in which psychology and Christianity are potentially complementary
are the necessity of transparency for personal and inter-personal
growth, the necessity to transcend a mechanical existence through the experience of Love in I-Thou relatedness, and the necessity for a
sense of significance or positive self-esteem. These concepts, while distinct,
are so interrelated that they will be treated as a whole.
The recent rise of encounter or T-groups indicates a growing concern for honest
and genuine relationships with one's self and with others. Although such groups
have been criticized as to their long-range effects outside of the
encounter group,
their positive emphasis has been upon the establishment of
transparent relationships.
Such transparency represents the peak of psychological growth. It necessitates
painful honesty with one's self and the courage to brave the potential pain of
non-defensive interpersonal relationships.4
Christianity both adheres to and supplements this basic concept, differing to
some extent in the method of achievement. The foundation of
transparency, according
to Christianity, is the willingness to open ourselves to God, in all
of our personhood,
and to maintain that genuine relatedness through daily response to God's Spirit
and precepts in the written Word. Openness to God leads in turn to transparent,
caring relationships with others. If such interpersonal relationships
do not exist
we have decided ourselves as to our being open to and knowing God (I
John 4:7-12).
These relationships of transparency are primarily maintainable as we
replace inadequate
and debilitating emotional defenses by self-acceptance rooted in
God's unconditional
love and acceptance of us as persons (though perhaps still
unregenerate), because
we are made in his image (Psalm 139:13-16). Use of these ego-defenses lead only
to self-deception, hence sin, and disrupts our relationships with both God and
our fellow man. According to God's Word we are to root our self-significance in
the Love and Relationships which God has directed to man as His
special Creation.
One of the ego-defensive tactics which modern man seems to employ
frequently and
which also seems to be a reflection of responsibility-relieving determinism, is
the attempt to deny the responsibility for negative (moral) actions by blaming
the guilt on others or on one's background. Such techniques of repression and
projection rob men of the opportunity to grow, and are ultimately psychically
and societally destructive
The hope of man is in the possibility of making decisions, and in the supreme decision of establishing and maintaining a relationship with God.
Any notion of responsibility must grapple with the experience of
guilt. It seems
that man was not made to live with guilt. It causes disintegration
and alienation.
Blaming others or denying its existence do not remove real guilt, but
simply prevents
an honest acceptance of one's self with resultant transparency.
Guilt, therefore,
should be a signal for confession and restitution. It should not he
lugged around
unresolved . . . indeed it cannot he if one is to experience the
freedom of transparency.
Some psychologists have severely criticized Christianity for the concept of sin
and guilt.12 They state that these notions are psychologically
disintegrative which
they are-while ignoring the complementary concept of
the restorative power of horizontal and vertical confession. It might he
nice if we could abolish gui1t, and act as we please, but if man is
a moral creature, as Christianity states and history seems to support, we might
better deal with the abolition of guilt through appropriate
prevention and restitution.
Clearly, there is imagined guilt, as Freud suggested, which is the product of
manipulative and narrow subcultural interests. This guilt is
definitely destructive
and unnecessarily hinds persons. There is also real guilt, with real
moral culpability,
which is the product of the destructive transgression of God's
commandments, according
to Christianity. Thus, there should be the experience of guilt, it
seems, if one
murders another or commits adultery. These actions are basically
disintegrative,
egocentric, arid destructive breaches of God's lawful and harmonious
relationships.
Indeed, persons who have no such moral sensitivity and do not
experience the feeling
of guilt for obviously destructive actions are designated as sociopaths by the
psychologist.
Guilt, of course, does not refer solely to some heinous act of
murder, but seems
to apply to any intentional act which would alienate us from God and from one
another. If we try to embezzle or cattily criticize another, or don't engage in
an act of compassion when given the opportunity, we are choosing actions which
in their egocentricity alienate us from loving, caring, growth
relationships with
God and fellow men. God calls such actions sin, and the experience of
anyone indicates
the kinds of interpersonal barriers and personal callouses which form if proper
responsibility is not assumed.
God has provided us with a remarkable set of restorative tools in the
respective
acts of forgiving and confessing sin (guilt). In our increasingly
mechanical world
where man can seemingly escape becoming a hollow machine only by his loving and
transparent embrace of personal I-Thou relationships, these acts are essential.
The Illinois psychologist, 0. Hobart Mowrer, has written extensively about the
need for confession between human beings as the way to intra and inter-personal
wholeness.13
In the Sermon on the Mount, we read that we are not to offer gifts of worship
to God if we remember that we have wronged our brother, until we ask
his forgiveness.
By this cathartic act of humility we restore both our horizontal and vertical
relationships. By removing the barrier of pride we become transparent and whole
again.
The other side of the coin, given in Matthew 6, is that God will 'forgive our
trespasses (breaches of our relationship to God) as we forgive those
who trespass
against us." Such forgiveness is granted with the awareness that
we are not
better than our brother (Phil. 2:3). Such an attitude and action again prevents
the establishment of disintegrative barriers which rob us of our wholeness and
ability to be open. According to this verse, the implication is that
if we don't
voluntarily forgive those who have sinned against us we become as
morally guilty
as they are, because we prevent continued growth between ourselves as persons
and God.
The refusal to ask for or to grant forgiveness also underlines a
basically unhealthy
ego-defense of a person who is not willing to see himself as he is, or must use
manipulation to relate to others. In order to defend himself from exposure this
nontransparent person usually engages in chronic criticism of others, verbally
"murder
ing"
Three areas of complementarity between psychology and Christianity:
(1) necessity
of transparency for personal and interpersonal growth; (2) necessity
to transcend
a mechanical existence through
the experience of Love in I-Thou relatedness; and (3) necessity for a sense of
significance or positive self-esteem
them. The irony, of course, is that the faults he sees in others are
his own in disguise. The result is a person constantly in internal and external
conflict who is
unable to relate in a positively intimate, growth-pro-ducing manner to either
other human beings or God. Such a person is indeed isolated, and even
a profession
of belief in Cod becomes questionable as to its reality (1 John 4:7-8).
The tragedy of this defensive posture is that such self-deception and
non-transparency
is an attempt to preserve one's integrity and establish himself as a
significant,
worthwhile human being . . . something which God has already assured
us of unconditionally
by his willingness to love us through the personal relationship of Christ.
This search for a base of self-significance or esteem, so critical to
each individual
and recognized as such by both Christianity and psychology, 14
becomes increasingly
crucial in an impersonal and mechanistic world. Material accumulation and the
ability to exercise power through manipulation or productivity have
become major
secular indices of personal worth-whileness. The result is an ever-spiralling pressure
for the individual to produce and obtain material goods. The standard
of self-significance
has increasingly become what one has or does, rather than who one is
as a person,
apart from power and position.
When modem man's reference point becomes the mechanical, material world, and he
is also told by naturalistic philosophy that he is simply a chance product of
impersonal forces, he begins to lose the capacity to relate to other
human beings
in a growth-giving manner.1 Indeed, through such object fixation, as
divorce statistics
seem to corroborate, other people are transformed into objects, satisfiers of
immediate need which can be thrown away or traded in. The endurance needed to
develop accepting and meaningful relationships with others seems archaic in a
society devoted to the economy of planned obsolescence and object
satisfaction.
Some men, however, have begun to sense that their fixation on superficial I-It
relations is an embrace of death, leading only to alienation and loss
of personhood.
They have begun to suspect such a foundation can be neither
satisfying or enduring
because it is an attempt to gain significance by not facing ones human dilemma
honestly. It is understandable that apart from a significant
relationship to God,
unable to find a reason for significance in a mechanical world, men
begin to identify
subtly with that which seems most significant and powerful. In the
psychic frenzy
of the search for some reassurance that he is, in fact, alive and
worthwhile modern
man proceeds to destroy himself in object relationships or in reaction to I-It
relationships through equally non-growth oriented alternatives, such
as the apparently
autistic use of drugs, which ironically are also impersonal forces.
Both of these
instances are attempts to escape the psychic boredom and spiritual
hollowness of secular man isolated in God.
If, indeed, man's significance is foundationally related to an honest appraisal
of his identity stemming from the context of being made in the image
of God, these
alternatives will not provide lasting worth. Nor will other reactive attempts
at affirming Life, the natural 'response to recognition of the slow
death inherent
in the embrace of materialism. The natural response to the recognition that one
is inwardly dying in this mechanical world is to affirm his aliveness through
intense passion, demonstrated in acts of violence or in sexual preoccupation.
Both acts seem to confer personal meaning, but each precludes the formation of
intimate and enduring relatedness due to their manipulative and
autistic character.
They further alienate searching secular man from his only permanent source of
Life and significance, because they are not founded upon the acceptance of an
unconditional Love and personal relatedness. To many modern men, God seems dead
but it is only because they have embraced alternatives of death in
their separation
from God and alienation from men.
Into this desperate search of modern man for significance, wholeness, and Life
must come Christians as persons (not statistic counters), who are
willing to accept
and relate to their unsaved counterparts as persons, in a manner
which is reflective
of God's caring love. According to Christianity the base of each
person's significance
is rooted in the purpose and relationship engendered in each person's special
creaturehood and released in the Personal Encounter of Salvation
through the person
of Christ. Each Christian must function, then, as a bridge, as an
involved friend
introducing an even more Involved Friend.
The contemporary Christian then must be aware of some of the psychic needs and
motivations of his secular counterpart. He must try to understand
others as persons
and relate Christ to their whole person, through his own involvement
as a transparent
individual. Evangelism from a distance will not meet the desperate
cry of modern
man for his personhood.
REFERENCES
l B. F. Skinner, Beyond Freedom and Dignity, New York: Alfred Knopf, 1972.
2J. Wolpe, The Conditioning Therapies, Holt, and Winston, 1964.
3William Glasser, Reality Therapy, New Row, 1965.
4Vietnr Frankl, The Doctor and the Soul, Books, 1969.
5Cordnn Allport, The Individual and His Religion
MacMillian Co., 1960.
6Victnr Frankl, Man's Search For Meaning, New York: Washington Square
Press, 1963.
7Brollo May, Love and Will, New York: 'N. W. Norton & Co., 1969.
8F.ric Fromm, The Revolution of Hope, New York: Bantam Books, 1968.
9Ahraharn Maslow, The Psychology of Science, Chicago: Begnery Co., 1969.
10Sidney Jnnrard, The Transparent Self, Princeton: Van Nostrand Co., 1964.
11Albert EtIi.,'There is No Place for the Concept of Sin in
Psychotherapy",
J. Counsel. Psych., 1960, 7, 188-192.
120. H. Mowrer, The New Group Therapy, Princeton: Van Nostrand 1964.
l3Nathaniel Branden, The Psychology of Self-Esteem, New York: Bantam
Books, 1971.
i4Ericls Frnmm, The Art of Loving, New York: Harper and Bow, 1962.
l5C. C. Jung, The Undiscovered Self, Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1958.
from significance