Science and faith are complementary: the “Levels of Explanation” view

In an attempt to better understand the various Christian approaches to psychology, I read, “Psychology and Christianity: Five Views.” In this blog series, I am attempting to summarize the various approaches in six blog posts. The primary purpose is not to gain a deep understanding of each approach, but to gain a framework for interacting with each view. I want to guard against building or accepting straw man arguments when reviewing, discussing or even thinking about each position. In this post, I will look at the first approach, the “Levels of Explanation” view.

Representative of the view

David G Myers presents the “Levels of Explanation” view. He is an author and a psychology professor at Hope College in Holland, Michigan. He describes himself as “…an active Christian, one who begins each day by engaging the Word and the world, via Bible reading, prayer and the New York Times.” (49).  

Presentation of the view 

Myers writes from the perspective of a professor and researcher. He is a psychology professor and the author of at least one psychology textbook. He reviews various formal definitions of psychology in academia from textbooks and from Advanced Placement, CLEP¹ College-Level Examination Program, and GRE² Graduate Record Examination psychology exams. Then he synthesizes these views and offers the definition of psychology as, “…the science of behavior and mental processes.”(49) This definition foreshadows, at least as I understood him, his view of psychology. It seems that for him, the science of psychology is a science that describes human behavior and actions. It is more focused on acquiring understanding and insight than bringing healing. He doesn’t say this directly, but spends much time on research techniques, assumptions, and various studies while spending almost no time on counseling skills. 

“Levels of Explanation” focus on the complexity of reality and, in particular, the complexity of the human creature. Myers quotes John Polkinghorne in saying,

I can perceive another person as an aggregation of atoms, an open biochemical system in interaction with the environment, a specimen of homo sapiens, an object of beauty, someone whose needs deserve my respect and compassion, a brother for whom Christ died. All are true and all mysteriously coinhere in that one person.

Psychology and Christianity: Five Views, p. 51

Complementary disciplines

Myers goes on to explain that the relationship between various disciplines are not in conflict but complimentary. Rather than trying to determine which scientific discipline best brings healing to an individual, the “Levels of Explanation” approach recognizes the contribution of various disciplines and attempts to build bridges between them. He presents a table with various disciplines as a non-exhaustive example. The disciplines listed are: 

• Theology 
• Philosophy  
• Sociology 
• Psychology  
• Biology 
• Chemistry  
• Physics 
• Elemental Explanation³p.52.

A human can be described in truthful terms by any one of these views. The question isn’t, “Which discipline best brings healing?” Rather, we should be asking, “Which discipline, or combination of disciplines will best bring healing to this particular person, struggling with this particular issue or set of issues, at this particular time, in this particular context?” 

Parallels between science and faith

A person is constantly being formed by the complexities of thought, behavior, emotions, experience, and environment. Psychological science and faith are both necessary and complementary for discerning the sources of pain and providing a path toward healing. Myers goes on to show parallels between scientific observation and theological truths.

For example, from a psychological science point of view, people are often at the mercy of powers greater than themselves. They are the product of family upbringing, cultural influences, and forming experiences, but these influences do not fully negate their agency. They still can make choices, push against influences, give in to pressure, or assert themselves and regain some sense of freedom. This parallels biblical theological ideas about God’s providence, sovereignty, and human free will. God is indeed sovereign and yet, humans do, in some sense have free will. We can make choices, grieve the Holy Spirit, and be held accountable for evil we have committed. He sums up this idea with the following analogy,

Faced with these pairs of complementary ideas, framed either psychologically or theologically, we are like someone stranded in a deep well with two ropes dangling down. If we grab either one alone we sink deeper into the well. Only when we hold both ropes can we climb out, because at the top, beyond where we can see, they come together around a pully.

David Myers, Psychology and Christianity: Five Views, p. 62 

Assumptions 

• Psychology is “…the science of behavior and mental processes.” (49).  
• Curiosity and humility are two essential components of psychological inquiry. (49)  
• Faith and science are not mutually exclusive disciplines. (49).  
• Personal values guide our research and reporting. (54). 
• Faith often is the motivation behind psychological science (56). 
• Our understanding is vulnerable to error. (58). 
• The Levels of Explanation approach to psychology is an attempt to build a worldview where psychological science and Christian faith complement each other. (51). 
• Psychological science sometimes challenges faith (67).  
• Psychological science and Christian faith require a healthy skepticism. (75). The good Christian psychologist holds his or her conclusions humbly and is always looking to deepen understanding. 

Approach to healing 

Myers does not talk much about the “Levels of Explanation” approach to healing and well-being. His focus is more on research and understanding the complexities of humans and the trauma we experience. This makes me think that he sees the task of psychology more as a research task than a practical task. In other words (this might be too strong), the psychologist’s role is to understand the human creature. This is distinct from the role of the counselor, which is to help bring healing to the human creature. Myers spends a good amount of time talking about psychological research supporting family values. He summarizes studies that isolate the negative effects of divorce on children and the positive effect of church attendance for everyone. The unstated approach to healing seems to be that following Christian values and practices contributes to health and well-being.  

Next, he presents some of the ways psychological research has challenged faith. He follows a study on prayer and a study on sexual orientation that have caused some to reconsider their theology and presuppositions (71-74).

This should not be seen as a threat but, if we keep an attitude of curiosity and humility, these findings should be considered an opportunity for deeper understanding.

David Myers, Psychology and Christianity: Five Views, p. 67 

The study on prayer didn’t seem to challenge Myers views. However, he admits his study on the research on sexual orientations influenced him to revise some of his views (71-74).

Opposite conclusions on sexual orientation

This is particularly interesting because in the chapter on the Integrationists’ view, Stanton Jones also reviews modern research on sexual orientation and comes to an opposite conclusion.⁴ See p. 120-125 cf. comments in blog post three. This is one of the few areas in the book where there was significant overlap between authors on a single subject. Myers discusses several areas of research that have caused him to reconsider his stance on the morality of sexual orientation. The interesting thing is that four of these areas are also directly addressed by Jones.

Myers argues that familial influences are not a significant factor in sexual orientation. Genetics seems to be a strong factor in determining sexual orientation. Efforts to change sexual orientation almost always fail. And finally, the Bible has little to say about sexual orientation. To his credit, Myers is not dogmatic about his view and says that this is a story still being written (73).

Two of these arguments, genetics and the Bible, were of interest to me. Genetics was of interest because Jones will later address the same issue. The Biblical data was of interest because, in my opinion, Myers does not deal with the issue with the same level of scholarship as the rest of the chapter.  

In his argument from biological factors, he cites reputable studies of biological siblings and concludes that if a sibling (especially an identical twins) is gay, the other sibling is more likely to be gay. This observation implies a strong connection between genetics and sexual orientation. This challenged Myer’s thinking and moved him to considering sexual orientation as an attribute, like left-handedness, rather than a flaw or sin. This is something that Jones will address later and come to the opposite conclusion.

Flawed hermeneutic

Second, with respect to the argument from Biblical data, my goal here is not to analyze, but I will in this case. I found Myers claim that the Bible has little to say about sexual orientation disappointing. He is clearly out of his area of expertise, but still speaks with an authoritative voice. He does little more than count verses and conclude that since there are so few verses directly on point, and none from Jesus, that this is not a significant Biblical issue. In my view this is a flawed hermeneutic that renders the conclusions meaningless. 

While he does not describe a specific approach to healing, he seems to imply that levels of scientific inquiry are combined with social science to inform an approach to healing.

Moreover, whether straight or gay, everyone faces moral choices over options that include abstinence, promiscuity and permanent commitment. It therefore behooves us all to discern biblical mandates and priorities, critically evaluate and learn from the natural revelations of science, regard one another with love and grace, and learn from one another through open, honest dialogue.

David Myers, Psychology and Christianity: Five Views, p. 74

Flexible model

The “Levels of Explanation” view has a flexible model of practicing psychology. In essence it includes having a broad knowledge of the social and hard sciences and viewing them as general revelation.

Using the current understanding of a human on various levels, the counselor’s task is to learn about the personal life situation and challenges faced by the person they hope to help. The challenges and goals will determine a path to healing and which levels of explanation apply. He says, “Which perspective is pertinent depends on what you want to talk about.” (51). The counselor/psychologist must consider the many material and immaterial aspects and influences of a person’s life. Then, understanding the complexities involved in the forming of this individual and the complexities involved in the current struggles/challenges in the individual’s life, the counselor can humbly propose an approach to healing. This approach may focus on a specific “level” or, more likely, a combination of disciplines.  

Levels of explanation applied

Consider the following hypothetical trauma case. At the beginning of the full-scale war in Ukraine, a young pastor was driving a van back from western Ukraine to be used to help deliver humanitarian aid supplies. On the way back, he was in a terrible car accident that took his life. He left a young wife and two-year-old son. How might a counselor from the “Levels of Explanation” view approach helping this young widow?  

I think a “Levels of Explanation” counselor would, of course, spend time mourning with the widow and providing for immediate needs. However, they would not assume that mourning together alone would bring healing. They would spend some time listening, exploring history, family background, physical health, social context, and environmental influences. They may even gather a team of experts to gather and analyze the information. Based on all the gathered information, the counselor would design a path to healing that would include talk therapy and possibly (even likely) other therapies from the other levels of explanation. 

Summary of Attributes

View and Representative	Sources of psychological knowledge	Attitude toward contemporary psychology	Goal of Psychology	Primary Allegiance	Primary Task
Levels of Explanation, David G. Myers	Social and hard sciences, philosophy and Christian theology	A source of general revelation on the level of the Bible	To bring healing to the whole person	Broader community of scholars	Acquisition of knowledge
An Integration View, Stanton L. Jones
A Christian Psychology View, Robert C. Roberts and P.J. Watson.
A Transformational Psychology View, John H Coe and Todd W. Hall
A Biblical Counseling View, David Powlison

Concluding reflections

Again, my goal in reading this book and writing these posts is to provide clarity and avoid the “straw man” fallacy. Therefore, I am not analyzing these views. However, I can provide some reflections on each one. I appreciate the level of nuance and humility expressed by the representatives of all five views. My assumption is that each presenter is an authoritative representative of the view.

Myers builds strong arguments for the “Levels of Explanation” approach to psychology, yet he holds his conclusions tentatively and cautiously. I appreciate the wholistic approach to humanness that this view holds. It appreciates both the material and immaterial sides of a person. This is a strength and a weakness. As I see it, to truly consider all the “levels” of a person in relation to their well-being, a team of experts is really necessary. I think Myers demonstrates this indirectly but well in his explanation of the Biblical data on sexual orientation. While he is clearly a specialist in psychology, he is not an exegete or theologian. I would love a world where a team of experts could be gathered to help each person suffering a trauma, but that does not seem to be practical to me. 

Series Navigation

<< Helping those suffering from trauma: 5 viewsThe lordship of Christ, science, and revelation: the Integration view  >>

.