Embracing Christian assumptions: the Christian Psychology 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 third approach, the “Christian Psychology” view.

Representatives 

Robert C. Roberts and Paul J. Watson present the “Christian Psychology” view. Roberts is a retired Distinguished Professor of Ethics at Baylor University while Watson, now deceased, was a professor of Psychology at the University of Chattanooga. 

Presentation of View 

Roberts and Watson define psychological science as “…the careful observation and reflection about human psychic wellbeing and dysfunction.” With that definition in mind, they assert that psychology, as we understand it, is not a new discipline. It has been practiced in many ancient cultures and these practices are preserved for us in many ancient documents and we would do well to pay attention to these documents (p. 150).  

No consensus on well-being

Roberts and Watson then explore some of these ancient philosophies and compare them to the views of some modern psychological thinkers. Their point is that there has never been a consensus on what human flourishing means and how to promote it. For example, they compare Epicureans to Freud and observe that both see primarily the physical world and therefore well-being is achieved by “…maximizing the pleasantness of this temporary life.” (150)  

On the other hand,

Platonists disagreed, thinking that people are more than just physical matter and their happiness more than just the maximization of pleasure. Somewhat like modern Jungians, Platonists thought that human wellbeing requires that we be personally in touch with something eternal, and Plato’s moral therapy was thus designed to get the soul to “recollect” its eternal nature and thus to come to love what is eternally good.

Roberts and Watson, Psychology and Christianity: Five Views, p. 150

The Stoics and Skeptics had another view. They, like modern cognitive therapists, saw well-being as being “…emotionally undisturbed.” This could be achieved by rational argument (151).  

Aristotle’s view of happiness

Finally, Aristotle was in disagreement with the Epicureans, Stoics, and skeptics but had some overlap with Christians, Jews, and Plato. He thought happiness was living a tranquil life.

He thought that it required excellent functioning as a rational social animal in a properly constituted community, along with contemplations of the eternal in a way reminiscent of Plato’s thought. But his notion of the eternal that one needed to be in contact with…was quite different from that of the Christians and the Jews.

Roberts and Watson, Psychology and Christianity: Five Views, p. 151

Christian psychologists embrace their assumptions

Roberts and Watson describe psychology as a study of what it means to be human and how to promote well-being while discouraging dysfunction. Rather than contrasting Christian psychology with secular psychology, they embrace that the Christian psychologist has a distinctly Christian set of assumptions. Like secular psychologists, the Christian psychologist is not objective. The main distinction between the Christian psychologist and other psychologists is that the Christian psychologist embraces his or her assumptions.

Therefore, the starting point and the primary authority for understanding the human psyche, is the Bible. The Christian psychologist studies the Bible to understand the essence of humanity. They use this knowledge as a lens to distinguish good secular psychological research from bad research and good therapeutic practices from bad ones.  

Assumptions 

• Christianity, and by extension Judaism, are worldviews that have always practiced psychology (174). 
• There are no psychological truths and practices that are common to man across cultural differences. They reach this conclusion this by contrasting “positive psychologists” with Christian psychologists (154). Positive psychologists are those who assume that there is a universal body of psychological thought that is equally acceptable across all cultures.
• Christian psychology seeks to describe the “psychological nature of human beings” from a distinctly Christian point of view (155).  
• The rich resources that form the acknowledged assumptions of the Christian psychology world view start with the Bible (155). 

Approach to Healing 

Roberts and Watson present a two-step process of developing an approach to psychological counseling. Step one is to describe the human creature from the data in the Bible. This is the “psychological nature of human beings as understood according to historic Christianity” (155). They demonstrate step one by writing a running commentary on the Sermon on the Mount to glean insights into the psychological nature of human beings (155). They equate psychology with ethics and then seek to extract ethics from the Bible to inform their psychology. Roberts and Watson do a kind of psychotherapy-directed Lectio Divina on the Sermon on the Mount. They read it, do a cursory interpretation, and then ponder the implications for psychology, psychotherapy, and human well-being. From these ponderings they began to build a prism through which to view a person. Then they use this prism to build a structure to promote mental well-being.  

The Sermon on the Mount

For example, they identify concepts in the Sermon on the Mount such as being poor in spirit, mourning, and hungering for righteousness. They call them “therapeutic interventions (or avenues by which a person might move from pathological to healthy patterns of thought, passion and action)” (158). They recognize that these “therapeutic interventions” may not seem very much like psychology. But every psychology has its own metaphysical assumptions. These assumptions from the Sermon on the Mount are part of the distinctly “Christian psychology” metaphysical assumptions. 

This may seem like an approach that simply provides ethical commands on how to behave and it is in some sense just that. This first step often does identify what you should do or who you should be. That can come across as a “just do this,” or “don’t do that” approach. However, the how to achieve well-being is often found in contemporary psychological practices. However, these must be analyzed and practiced from the distinctly Christian set of assumptions (158). 

Interacting with other branches of psychology

Step two has two parts. First, the counselor must gain understanding from empirical research “common to contemporary psychology,” (164) while maintaining their own distinctly Christian assumptions. Second, the counselor must interact with research that is based on different assumptions (164, 167). As I understand them, they recognize and embrace that different branches of psychology have different starting points. Instead of trying to change those starting points, they want to interact with them from the standpoint of their own assumptions. The Christian psychologist seeks to develop a healthy dialogue to learn from others, rather than a debate to change others. The Christian psychological researcher needs to make abstract concepts such as being “pure of heart” or “mature,” practical and attainable. That means that the researcher needs to find ways (usually in secular psychological research) to identify and measure these ideas in an observable way. 

Finally, they end with a restatement of their thesis,

…our primary agenda in this chapter was to show the need for Christians to practice their psychology in light of their basic assumptions and the resources of their distinctive tradition.

Roberts and Watson, Psychology and Christianity: Five Views, p.173 

Hypothetical Trauma

As we have been doing in the other posts in this series, 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 “Christian Psychology” view seek to help this young widow? 

The Christian psychology counselor would probably approach this widow similar to the Integrationist, but more overtly “Christian.” I am sure they would listen and mourn together with her. They would probably explore some background issues and offer distinctly Christian response. Then this would probably include some pondering of specific Bible passages, some directed prayer, some spiritual disciplines, and Christian community involvement. 

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	Scripture, theology, and psychological research	A source of general revelation that has distinctly different assumptions from the Christian	To bring healing and thriving through distinctly Christian practices	The church	Bring healing from a distinctly Christian perspective
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 the primacy of the Bible in the “Christian Psychology” perspective. But, like the integration approach, I was not overly impressed with their approach to Scripture. The running commentary on the Sermon on the Mount was interesting. But it told me more about their ability to handle Scripture than about the meaning of Jesus’ teaching.

I also appreciate that the Christian Psychology approach recognizes that different schools of thought have different starting points. The goal is not to change the other’s starting point but to be curious and learn what we can from each other. This seems to me to be a more productive approach to scholarship. That said, Roberts and Watson implied several times that only the Christian Psychologist realizes that they have a distinct set of assumptions. I think that is too absolute a position. Maybe they didn’t mean it as strong as it came across. Finally, I appreciated their integration and cautious respect for other points of view – especially what we can learn from ancient philosophies.   

Series Navigation

<< The lordship of Christ, science, and revelation: the Integration view A Transformational Psychology View  >>

.