The lordship of Christ, science, and revelation: the Integration 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 second approach, the “Integration” view. 

Representative of the view

Dr. Stanton L. Jones presents the Integration view. Jones is a psychologist and former provost of Wheaton College. Upon his retirement, Dr. Jones received the titles of Professor of Psychology and Core Studies Emeritus and Provost Emeritus. 

Ultimate questions

Jones starts his presentation by first finding common ground with secular psychology. After presenting what he calls ultimate questions, such as “Where do we come from?, What are we? and Where are we going?”, he explains one of the foundational principles of the integrative approach. Since psychological research (social science) and psychological practice (counseling) are done by humans, psychology cannot escape these ultimate questions. In fact, the secular researcher and the practitioner are influenced by their answers to these questions. Even if a person is not actively seeking answers to these ultimate questions, they will have intrinsic answers and these answers will influence their research and how they practice psychology.

The Christian psychologist, on the other hand, actively seeks to answer these questions and recognizes that his or her worldview influences the way they practice research or counseling. Finally, the Christian psychologist has the advantage of having the answer to these ultimate questions, although his or her grasp of the answers “is fragmentary and incomplete.” (p. 101) 

Special revelation has authority in the integration

In essence, Integrationists reject the idea that empirical science and Christianity do not overlap. Jones recognizes that empirical science has its own set of philosophical presuppositions and sometimes those assumptions are antithetical to Christianity and sometimes they align. He proposes to recognize the assumptions, test them against our own Christian assumptions, and where possible integrate them and where not, distinguish them. He further proposes to do all research and practice with the base assumption of Jesus as Lord and all the implications that belief brings. In that light, he offers the following definition of the integration view.

Integration of Christianity and psychology (or any area of “secular thought”) is our living out – in this particular area – of the lordship of Christ over all of existence by our giving his special revelation – God’s true Word – its appropriate place of authority in determining our fundamental beliefs about and practices toward all of reality and toward our academic subject matter in particular.

Stanton L. Jones, Psychology and Christianity: Five Views, p. 102

Assumptions 

Jones offers both implied and specific assumptions connected with the integration view. These assumptions include: 

• Jesus is Lord over all reality and existence. (101) 
• There is common ground between secular psychology and Christianity. (101) 
• Secular psychology and Christianity seek to answer the same ultimate questions. (101) 
• God has revealed the answers to the ultimate questions to the Christian. (101)
• Scripture does not provide all we need to fully understand human beings. (101) 
• Psychological science has a legitimate role in bringing healing to humans. (101) 

Assumptions about Christianity

He offers a broad definition of Christianity, recognizing that there are various denominations. I was able to identify five tenants of Christianity which he holds: 

• God has miraculously intervened in history. (108) 
• These interventions are factual historical events. (108)  
• The revelation of scripture is trustworthy. (108) 
• Not everything we want to know is in the Bible. (101) 
• There is disagreement among Christians about the meaning of some texts in the Bible. (109) 

Assumptions about science

Next, he offers a broad definition of science.  

• All data are theory-laden. (113) 
• Facts are insufficient to prove scientific theories. (113) 
• Science itself is a cultural and human phenomenon. (113) 
• Science progresses not through the accumulation of bare facts, but through the refinement of theories and theory-laden facts, which are themselves embedded in broader conceptual webs. (114) 

Approach to Healing 

In his approach to healing, Jones starts by trying to integrate scientific research and theological research. I identified a broad four-step process. 

• Start with a commitment to the Bible and to Christian theology. (115) 
• Follow good scientific methodological practices. (115) 
• Be aware of the tension between the scientific and Christian communities. (115) 
• “We should be tentative, patient and humble.” (116) 

Jones’ approach to research

In essence, he is saying that the integrationist does good scientific and theological research. A lifestyle of Christian growth and practice will shape a person in such a way that produces a kind of divine insight (125). In other words, the psychologist’s Christian convictions provide the wisdom and insight to determine which research results and healing practices qualify as true general revelation. Approaching the science of psychology from this point of view, the integrationist will constantly be refining a healing process that is effective and honoring to God. He summarizes the process of healing as “…a recursive process of expanding understanding, but always with our most fundamental loyalty being to the true teachings of the special revelation of the Bible.” (117). 

Jones does not offer clear practical steps in his approach to healing. His focus is more on his approach to research. The implication is that as this integrative research approach produces more understanding, the approach to healing will also become clearer. However, he ends with two examples from his own work that give us insight into his approach to healing (p. 118ff) He writes about his research in engaging psychotherapy and research on sexual orientation.

A differing conclusion on sexual orientation

As noted in the previous blog post, it is interesting that both Myers and Jones comment on the issue of sexual orientation, As Christian psychologists, they come to completely opposite conclusions. As also stated in the previous blog, Jones’ and Myers’ arguments overlap on this issue in four areas: Bible, biology, family experience and conversion. I wanted to comment on only two areas, Bible and biology.  

Jones starts out with his understanding of the Bible’s teaching on sexuality. This is more in line with his approach as an integrationist. His theology guides both his research and his analysis of research data. I was more impressed with Jones’ analysis of the biblical data than I was with Myers’. That said, I still think he is outside his expertise. He builds a logical argument based on biblical concepts, but not on exegesis. While this is better than just counting words and verses, in my view, if the integrationist relies on the Bible to form his worldview, his treatment of the Bible should be more robust.

Jones doesn’t directly challenge Myers, but he deals with many of the same topics in his discussion of biology as a factor in sexual orientation. He critiques the methodology of some of the studies that conclude that biology is a primary factor in sexual orientation and then offers as evidence other studies with a better (according to him) methodology that find that the percentage of same sex attraction among siblings (even identical twins) to be about the same as the general population. Hence, biology does not seem to be a major factor in determining sexual orientation.

However, like Myers, he is not dogmatic. He ends with the statement,

“To be clear: science does not disprove that genetics, prenatal hormones, brain structure or any of a number of other biological factors have something to do with sexual orientation. Our biology, including our genes, likely does influence our sexual orientation, but this is only one among a set of factors.”

Stanton L. Jones, p. 124

My point here is not to side with Jones or Myers, but to highlight that they have come to different conclusions. This demonstrates the complexity of the issue and the need for careful scholarship among practitioners and careful study among readers.  

The integration view 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 Integration view approach helping this young widow? 

I think the Integration approach will vary, depending on the Integrationist. The counselor would use the knowledge and tools from his or her research and Christian perspective. Those tools that are not expressly stated in the Bible are determined by general revelation and therefore considered valid by the Integrationist. However, different Integrationists are at various stages of maturity and have various levels of insight. Therefore, the different Integrationists accept different practices. I am sure that there would be much overlap, but, for example, one Integrationist may accept EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing) as a therapy, while another may stick with cognitive behavioral therapy. One may start with the Bible and others may start with talk therapy. So, the approach would probably look very similar to a secular psychologist with a wide range of variations. 

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	Scripture, theology, and psychological research	A source of general revelation to be discerned through the lens of personal growth and Biblical wisdom	To do psychological research and work as a growing, discerning Christian	Broader community of scholars	Acquisition of knowledge
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.

I appreciate Jones’ commitment to the Bible and the Christian worldview. I also appreciate the approach that the influence of Biblical truth will help give insight into making good decisions about general revelation. However, this did seem somewhat vague to me. I wanted to know more about how personal spiritual maturity results in insight in secular research. My impression is that it is an automatic implication of growth. I can partly agree with this, but perhaps there are some practices or diagnostic questions that help guide the development of wisdom applied to science. 

Series Navigation

<< Science and faith are complementary: the “Levels of Explanation” viewEmbracing Christian assumptions: the Christian Psychology View  >>

.