Out of Balance p.

The Integration of Psychology and Theology:

An Enterprise out of Balance

James R. Beck

Denver Seminary

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society

Colorado Springs, CO

November 15, 2001

Copyright 2001 by James R. Beck

 Out of Balance p. 2

Abstract

This paper compares original visions for the integration of psychology and theology with major

approaches represented in current literature and finds that the enterprise is out of balance. Most

approaches are either focused heavily on the scriptural/biblical side of the equation or they

relegate theological considerations to a relatively unimportant status. The paper argues that the

original vision for a balanced approach remains valid and that current imbalanced approaches

suffer from limitations that will cripple the endeavor over time. The paper concludes with an

examination of some of the threats to a balanced approach as well as suggestions for future

directions for the enterprise.

 Out of Balance p. 3

The Integration of Psychology and Theology:

An Enterprise out of Balance

The mental health movement as well as psychology in general loom large on the

American landscape. If we include all the various disciplines (psychiatry, psychology, social

work, and various types of counseling professions), the number of professionals involved in the

field is massive. This vast movement has achieved its prominence in American society over the

relatively short span of 50 years. Early into this span of time, Philip Rieff (1966) declared that

the therapeutic theme had reached a triumphant status in American life. And its importance and

presence in the contemporary scene has not waned since Rieff wrote his influential book; if

anything, the mental health movement has continued to grow in influence during the past 35

years. Many critics see this cultural change as the result of some type of aggressive takeover by

secularists who are determined to rid our nation of its Judeo-Christian heritage. The actual

explanation for the prominence of the mental health movement is probably much less

sensational; the mental health movement grows because of a relentless demand for its services.

As our culture increasingly fragments, individual lives, marriages, and relationships crumble;

these people need help. The majority of them are willing to turn to mental health practitioners

for help; far fewer numbers of them turn to the church for help.

Since the very beginning of the psychology and the mental health movements in

America, evangelicals have been involved as a distinct, minority voice. Psychology has become

a major social science in the academy that not only has a strong presence in undergraduate and

graduate education but also a large clinical wing of practitioners who deliver services to the

public. Hence evangelical Christians with baccalaureate, masters-level, and doctoral training
 Out of Balance p. 4

can find a great many opportunities for professional service. Many of these evangelical

academicians and practitioners work in Christian settings, but an equal number work in secular,

non-religious institutions, both educational and therapeutic. The extent to which evangelicals

have participated in this field is perhaps best illustrated in the number of doctoral programs

evangelicals have established at schools across the country (Biola, George Fox, Wheaton, Fuller,

and the free-standing Psychological Studies Institute of Atlanta, GA). In what other so-called

secular field have evangelicals invested so heavily? It is doubtful that evangelicals have

established training programs at an accredited, doctoral level to serve any of the other social,

natural, medical sciences to the same extent. For some critics this investment has been a

mistake of dreadful proportions, but for most observers this is an accomplishment that

contributes to the fulfillment of our mandate to bear witness to our faith in a darkened world.

From the very beginning, Christians entering the field of mental health and psychology

have expressed strong interest in taking their faith with them. The overlapping concerns of

psychologists and theologians have naturally propelled scholars and practitioners in both fields to

ask, How do these two domains relate to one another? The question has been more than a

passing interest for most Christian psychologists. They have taken the question seriously enough

to formulate various models of integration that could inform this interaction. Christian

psychologists have expressed a genuine desire to honor Christ in their work and to pursue their

psychological and psychotherapeutic tasks with biblical integrity and theological faithfulness.

These efforts have not been without their detractors nor have they always been successful; but

good intent seems to have been present from the beginning.

From early efforts to formulate models of interaction (Carter & Narramore, 1979) to

more recent work (Clinton, 1990; Faw, 1998), a core of researchers has advocated a rigorous
 Out of Balance p. 5

engagement of theology and biblical studies with the social science of psychology (including

both its academic and clinical arms). Even the most thoroughgoing integrationist is willing to

give priority to scriptural truth in view of the distinct nature of special versus general revelation.

Nonetheless, the true integrationist has also striven to give substantial attention to both

disciplines as a way of expending our understanding of human functioning and behavior. Great

strides have been made as well-trained scholars have demonstrated mastery of psychology at its

philosophical and theoretical level as well as mastery of its scientific productivity (Ingram, 1997;

Piedmont, Williams, & Ciarrocchi, 1997; Sorenson, 1996a, 1996b; Stateon, Sorenson, & Vande

Kemp, 1998). Evangelical authors have tackled major theories and families of theories to

determine how their assumptive foundations, their methodologies, and their inherent value

systems compare to and contrast with a biblical worldview as expressed in our theological

systems (Browning, 1987; Jones & Butman, 1991). The volume of work has been extensive, and

it can be a daunting task to keep abreast of all the material that is published in this area of interest

by evangelical publishing houses and by journals especially devoted to the topic.1 Yet there are

some signals in the current scene that trigger some concerns. Have we succeeded in approaching

the integration enterprise in a balanced fashion? Has our theological and biblical work been of

high quality? And have we demonstrated a thorough and competent understanding of the science

of psychology or do we too frequently resort to caricatures and reductive distortions?

The Current Scene

1
In addition to journals specifically devoted to the topic of the integration of psychology and theology (Journal of
Psychology and Theology, Journal of Psychology and Christianity), one can locate a wide array of journals that have
published one or more articles on the topic, journals that represent a wide range of scholarly interest. Some of these
journals are: Journal of the Study of the Old Testament, Journal of Theology, Modern Theology, Theology and
Sexuality, Zygon, Epworth Review, Journal of Analytical Psychology, Preaching, Medieval Philosophy and
Theology, Scriptura, and the Journal of Psychology and Judaism.
 Out of Balance p. 6

One summative representation of the current scene with regard to how evangelicals view

the relationship between psychology and Christianity is the recent volume edited by Eric L.

Johnson and Stanton L. Jones (2000), Psychology and Christianity: Four views. Johnson and

Jones describe for us the pronounced and sometimes loud debate within the evangelical world

regarding how these two disciplines should relate to each other. In the years and decades since

pioneers in the Christian counseling movement called for rigorous integration of psychology and

theology, an internal war has erupted. Christians have taken different positions regarding the

extent to which they should have anything to do with modern psychology, some embracing it

wholeheartedly, others rejecting it just as vigorously, and many others falling somewhere

between (Johnson & Jones, 2000, p. 9). The four views selected by Johnson and Jones as

representative of the current state of affairs regarding the relationship of psychology to theology

include only one that corresponds to a thorough integration of the two fields, a view described in

the volume by Gary R. Collins (2000). A second view argues that psychology and theology are

parallel disciplines that engage in different levels of explanation and thus are not truly

integratable fields (Myers, 2000). This second view, in practice, often gives more attention to

the psychological side of the equation than to the theological side. A third view argues that we

should seek to build a Christian psychology by mining the wisdom of saints who have gone

before us rather than by attempting to distill truth from contemporary and largely secular sources

of psychological information (Roberts, 2000). Obviously, this view puts heavier emphasis on

historical, biblical, and theological sources of information than on the psychological side. And

finally, the biblical counseling view, as described in this volume by David Powlison (2000),

argues that we should not engage in integration at all but should seek to derive our helping

strategies from the pages of Scripture only. One view seeks to maintain a semblance of balance
 Out of Balance p. 7

between the disciplines; the other three have abandoned or at least eschewed any attempt at

balance. Integration has become an enterprise out of balance.

In some ways the current situation reflects research conducted in 1988 by Foster, Horn, &

Watson. They examined articles published over a span of 5 years (1980-1985) in the main

integrative journal at that time, the Journal of Psychology and Theology, to determine which

model of integration the authors used. They compared the material in these articles to the five

integration models as articulated by Farnsworth (1982): credibility, convertibility,

conformability, compatibility, and complementarity. These five models consist of both

manipulative and correlational models of integration and span a spectrum from models that seek

to avoid integration as completely as possible to those that advocate a full-blown integration of

the two disciplines. Their findings support the conclusion that many integrationists aspire to use

a higher level of integration than is actually the case.

Most of the JPT authors are either attempting to reconstruct psychology or theology

using their theological or psychological world view or they are busy lining up secular and

theological facts that appear, at least superficially, to be consistent. Few integrationists

are willing to filter psychology through theology and none of those publishing in JPT

were willing to filter theology through psychology. (Foster, Horn, & Watson, 1988, p.

10)

In other words, scholars working in the area of the interface between psychology and theology

have been using a wide variety of models from the minimalist to the maximalist position even

early in the integrationist era. We have no reason to suspect that the situation has changed

dramatically since 1988. Full integration has been and continues to be fairly rare in practice

even as it is common in commitment.

 Out of Balance p. 8

A second level of concern emerges when we examine the work of integrationists to

understand the quality of work on the theological and psychological sides of the equation. As

previously mentioned, a large proportion of it represents rigorous and quality production. Yet

the exceptions are discouragingly common. Some scholars working in this area in integration

make sincere efforts to address the relevant biblical and theological issues but do it in an

unsatisfactory manner. Several types of problems appear. 1. Theological concepts and

theologians themselves are cited with little sense of how they fit into the larger scheme of the

evangelical theological landscape. An author may cite a Barthian concept or quote Bultmann

with little acknowledgement of how well these theologians reflect core evangelical convictions

(Hunsinger, 1995, 2001). 2. One can also read of authors who make misleading theological

statements, perhaps unintentionally but nonetheless mistakenly. For example, Boyd (1998)

states that early in the 20th century theologians dismissed the doctrine of the Trinity, a teaching

that was brought back by evangelical theologians such as Millard Erickson. Evangelical

theologians have not abandoned the doctrine of the Trinity only to come back to it later; they

have always affirmed it as does Millard Erickson and all evangelical theologians. This mixing of

theological systems can lead to a lack of clarity that is so essential for good integrative work. 3.

Integration authors can sometimes misstate theological positions. Boyd (1996) states that

Ericksons contingent monism or conditional unity is biased in favor of this life (p. 27) and

that it is at the opposite end of the spectrum from Coopers modified dualism. Such is not the

case. Cooper (1989) and Erickson (1985) are, in fact, quite close together although they

approach the matter from opposite directions. When integration authors add overstatements,

sweeping and unsupported or muddled conclusions, they lose their audience on both sides of the

integration fence (Boyd, 1994). 4. Integration authors at times cite Scripture with little attention
 Out of Balance p. 9

given to context or authorial intent. For example, in many recent works regarding the soul, an

appropriately biblical topic, writers cite passages without making clear that the authors of

Scripture use the term differently as we can observe by looking at how Peter uses the word as

compared to how Paul writes about the soul (see Beck, 2001, for more specific examples). 5. In

other instances, biblical and theological material is almost absent from integration conversations

in the literature. Jones, Ripley, Kuruso, & Worthington (1998) examined influential sources

cited in integration articles appearing in both the Journal of Psychology and Christianity and the

Journal of Psychology and Theology in the period from 1985 to 1994. One encouraging finding

was that the Bible (in its various English translations) was the most frequently cited book.

However, the remaining top 24 book titles cited did not include a single theological or biblical

work. Apart from the Bible, the top 25 books cited consisted of other integrative material. The

exact same trend appeared when the authors examined journal articles cited in these articles.

This last trend is perhaps the most disturbing of all. My intent in pointing out these examples is

not to discourage integration authors from using theological and biblical concepts in their

writings. To the contrary, we need this type of reflection. But we do need to upgrade the quality

and quantity of the theological and biblical observations that we make so as not to detract from

the intent of our work, namely to build up the church and to edify the saints.

A lack of sophistication also appears at times on the psychological side of the integration

equation. 1. The worst offenders, at least from my obviously biased perspective (Beck & Banks,

1992), are those authors who not only take an anti-integration position but more specifically an

anti-psychology position. Authors who recklessly seek to dismiss the entire clinical wing of

psychology as well as all of its scientific production (Bobgan & Bobgan, 1989; Bulkley, 1993)

must use contorted and contrived arguments to make their points. Their misunderstanding of
 Out of Balance p. 10

basic social science, their selective use of outdated material, their dismissive attitude to the

significant contribution psychology has made to ministry and church life in general are all

embarrassments to evangelicals who strive to serve Christ within the mental health professions.

2. But shortchanging psychological contributions to the advance of knowledge in the 20th

Century is not limited to anti-psychology authors. Other critics of modern psychological theory

often make the error of limiting their analysis to the presuppositional or assumptive level

undergirding these various theories. With perceptive skill critics of Freud or Jung or Fromm can

expose the anti-Christian or anti-supernatural biases of these theories with impressive logic and

careful argumentation. The inadequacy of their approach, however, surfaces when we realize

that the critics have stopped short of accounting for all of the data. Empirical research into

various predictions that these theories have made has found that some of their predictions turn

out to be validated in a replicated manner by carefully conducted experiments. For example,

studies verify the existence of the receptive, hoarding, and exploitative character types that were

predicted by Fromms theory (Schultz & Schultz, 2001). Likewise, many components of Jungs

extraversion and introversion themes have been verified by independent researchers; and

research has confirmed many aspects of Freudian theory including the unconscious, oral and anal

personality types, and repression (Schultz & Schultz, 2001). Thus we encounter the challenging

situation of theoretical formulations that are built on non-Christian or even anti-Christian

presuppositions still have the capacity to generate verified and verifiable observations of human

nature that had never before been suggested by Scripture or by other theorists. Intellectual

honesty requires that we deal with this material even if we can confidently dismiss the

presuppositions held by the secular theorist.

Limitations Inherent in Imbalanced Approaches

 Out of Balance p. 11

A brief overview of five current approaches to the relationship of psychology and

theology may help us identify some of the risks and inadequacies in an unbalanced approach to

this topic. The following approaches reflect five major types of approach, but little information

exists that would help us know just how evangelicals in the mental health field are apportioned

among these five groups.

Anti-psychology

A small but hard-to-ignore group of conservative evangelicals are convinced that the use

of any psychology by the church is a travesty on the gospel and poses a substantial threat to the

life and health of the church at large. The viewpoint appears in book form (Bobgan & Bobgan,

1989), in newsletters (The Psychoheresy Newsletter) and in other media formats. The influence

of this position is much stronger than is its intellectual credibility because it speaks directly to a

small population of persons who have been injured in some way by the Christian counseling

movement. Whether the injury or harm is real or just perceived, the affected person carries along

some justifications for bitterness and resentment. Perhaps a marriage dissolved into divorce

while a Christian couple was participating in Christian marriage counseling. Perhaps an

incompetent Christian counselor truly did impose harm on a client. Or, worst of all, perhaps

someone was sexually abused by a so-called Christian therapist. All of these eventualities are

tragic and can in no way be condoned. But at the same time these hopefully isolated instances of

harm or poor outcome should not be used to dismiss outright an entire profession and social

science.

Anti-psychology authors obviously argue that the integration of psychology and Christian

theology is to be totally avoided. Thus they decry the ministries of Focus on the Family, Gary

Collins, Christian A.A. groups, Ed Bulkley, Philip Yancey, the Southern Baptist Convention,
 Out of Balance p. 12

Larry Crabb, Martin De Haan, Link Care, Ed Smith, Promise Keepers, New Life, and many

others. In other words, anyone who uses a psychological concept such as self-esteem or in

anyway utilizes Christian counseling is suspect. The inherent limitation of this position rests in

its denunciations of groups and persons who are the objects of Gods blessings. Anti-psychology

advocates also express virulent anti-integration sentiments, but the following group of biblical

counselors who are anti-integration do not share the anti-psychology attitudes of this first group.

Biblical Counseling

Jay Adamss influential book, Competent to Counsel, appeared in 1972 at a very early

point in the integration movement. Jay Adams and his followers have argued for over three

decades that the integration of psychology and theology is unnecessary because Scripture

contains within its pages all of the principles and information we need to know how to live godly

lives. Attempts to learn how to live well from other sources are thus insults to the

comprehensiveness of Scripture and function as denials of its sufficiency to meet all of our

needs. The position essentially maintains that the concepts of mental illness and

psychopathology not valid categories in and of themselves, but rather contain two types of

problems that should be distinguished. The first are those problems that have a medical,

biological, or organic basis. These problems are best addressed by biological interventions such

as medication and other medical treatments. The second category consists in actuality of

problems that have their cause in sins of omission or commission, sinning or being sinned

against. Proper treatment for this category consists of spiritual interventions that assist the

suffering person in identifying the sins that need attention (confession, contrition, repentance,

forgiveness) so that the persons relationship with God can be restored. Once we have relegated

all the problems formerly considered to be categories of mental illness to their rightful
 Out of Balance p. 13

designation (biological/organic and spiritual/related to sin), we have nothing else left. Thus the

secular fields of psychology and psychotherapy have nothing they can contribute to our

understanding of these sinful conditions other than perhaps more detailed description or

symptom identification. They do not add to our basic understanding of causality or remediation.

The biblical counseling approach to integration brings to mind three important

limitations. First, this position contains some inherent inconsistencies. The biblical counseling

movement in the tradition and spirit of Adamss original work is actually not a position that

totally avoids all integration; it simply integrates at the most minimal level possible. We have

already noted that the position can accept diagnostic description and identification of problems.

It also accepts the general format of the psychotherapy movement (the format of one-to-one

conversation, clinics, appointments, fees, licensure, counseling process, specialized training), all

of which are borrowed wholesale from modern sources. One could never exegete these features

of biblical counseling from the pages of Scripture; they are borrowed from the modern

psychotherapy movement. Integration is not totally absent from the biblical counseling

movement, but it is kept at an absolute minimum.

A second problem arises when we realize that the biblical counseling movement must

simultaneously maintain that Scripture is sufficient in its prescription for human struggles but

also that its teaching is dense. It only appears, we are told, that the Bible does not address issues

such as anorexia, paranoia, or panic attacks. If we dig deep enough into the teachings of

Scripture we will uncover the true underlying causes of even the most recent of diagnostic

categories. By probing the unfathomed depth and breadth of Scripture (Welch & Powlison,

1997, p. 315), biblical counselors can find relevant material for every human struggle. They
 Out of Balance p. 14

accomplish this feat in large part by reductionistic strategies that collapse most all psychogenic

pathologies to some form of idolatry.

The third area of concern regarding the biblical counseling position revolves around its

assertion that it alone represents the orthodox and biblical position (International Church

Council, 1999, p. 1) of the church regarding counseling. The International Church Council

(ICC) has included among its 19 statements that are designed to represent mainstream theology

of the first 20 centuries a position paper on counseling that is essentially the biblical counseling

position. In the language of the ICC, the biblical counseling approach is thus the historic

position of the church that is being undermined by false teaching and outright heresy (ICC,

1999, p. 2). This assertion is anachronistic in nature and contradicts a longstanding tradition

within the church to utilize secular knowledge in its fulfillment of Christs mission in the world

(Beck, 1997). Efforts to shun secular knowledge (i.e. Greek philosophy) have certainly been

present in the history of the church, but they have never been the sole approach.

Levels of Explanation

Unlike the previous two positions that are imbalanced in the direction of theology and

biblical studies, the levels of explanation view tends to be imbalanced in the opposite direction:

giving great weight and attention to scientific psychology rather than to the theological side of

integration. The view is articulated well by David G. Myers of Hope College in Michigan in the

Johnson and Jones volume. Dr. Myers and others who have spent their distinguished careers

sorting through psychological studies to identify findings that approach scientifically lawful

status argue that psychology and theology both share humility before nature and skepticism of

human presumptions (Myers, 2000, p. 79), but that psychological science is the discipline that is

uncovering lawful principles that we must use continually to reform our understanding of
 Out of Balance p. 15

theology. This viewpoint asserts that theology contributes its understandings of human life at

one level and that psychology as a science contributes its perspectives at a different level.

Whereas most integrationists give precedence to biblical understandings of various disputed

issues, the levels of explanation theorists are usually quick to urge a reevaluation of our

theological and biblical understandings if a seeming contradiction emerges. They cite the

numerous times the church has erred in its understanding of scientific matters and the frequency

it has had to retract its biblical understanding in the face of overwhelming evidence to the

contrary. While the tortured history of relationship between science and faith does indeed

contain many such examples, the primary limitation of the levels of explanation view is that it

gives the science of psychology more surety and certainty than it actually has earned in its first

century of existence.

Christian Psychology

Robert Roberts has made a substantial contribution to the discussion of the relationship

between psychology and theology in recent years. His perceptive analysis of several important

psychotherapy movements has added to our understanding of the importance of attending to

presuppositional and embedded value systems within the theoretical approaches that we employ

(Roberts, 1993, 2000). Roberts concludes from his studies in the field that we are better served

by looking backwards in our own Christian tradition for material to use in building a Christian

psychology than we are to look into contemporary psychology for the building blocks of such a

truly Christian psychology (Roberts, 2001). Christian psychology starts with ideas and

practices already established by centuries of Christian tradition, and it develops psychological

concepts and practices from these with a minimum of reference to or influence from the

psychologies of the twentieth century (Roberts, 2001, p. 135). Roberts is correct in his
 Out of Balance p. 16

assertions that psychological concepts are embedded in Christian tradition and that Christians

have never done well without psychology in the past, and we have no reason to think that we can

do so today (Roberts, 2001, p. 135). We do indeed need to pay attention to the wisdom of the

Christian tradition, and we can learn a great deal from it. We need to become practiced in the

psychological help that the Christian tradition contains and to become articulate in voicing its

insights and prescribing it interventions (Roberts, 2001, p. 135).

But do we need to derive from Pauls letters a Pauline psychotherapy as Roberts attempts

to do (2001)? Are we trying to develop a Christian psychology that only describes Christians or

should we seek to develop a creation psychology that was dramatically impacted by sin and that

is redeemed by the Christian gospel (Cole, 1998)? Do we mean to build an in-house psychology

that applies only to believers and offers nothing to the wider world in which we live and work?

The major limitation stemming from the imbalance of the Christian psychology position is that

we unnecessarily distance ourselves from the proven as well as the potential value that modern

psychological investigations can bring to us and to the church.

Other Recent Approaches

A fifth approach, not addressed in the Johnson and Jones (2000) volume we have been

following in this paper, is a very popular trend currently found in the contemporary scene. This

approach integrates but does not do so explicitly. The integration between secular, psychological

theory is obscured beneath Christian language and presentation so that the consumer of these

approaches is often not aware that the intervention is actually a representation of integration

rather than a pure, biblical position. The first example of such a strategy is the Theophostic

movement established by Dr. Ed Smith. Advocates of the new Theophostic approach present it

as a powerful and unusually effective method of providing help to distressed Christians in a

 Out of Balance p. 17

time-effective manner. Proponents claim that the cures are nearly miraculous in their

effectiveness and that the methodology is Christian and Christ-honoring. Research into the

validity of these claims is just beginning to appear in the literature, and it will take us some time

to understand the methodology more completely (Bidwell, 2001; Garzon et al., 2001; Garzon,

Paloma, Gorsuch, Borden, & Tjersland, 2001). The coined name of the approach along with

other factors tend to imply that the methodologies involved are new and are Christian. In reality,

the methodology incorporates existing procedures proven effective with trauma victims as well

as approaches similar to the healing of memories that was popular a few years back. In other

words, integration is occurring here, but it is not explicitly discussed.

Another example is that of Christ Centered Therapy (Anderson, Zehlke, & Zuehlke,

2000). At the heart of the method is the freedom in Christ program of Neil Anderson that

represents the starting point for the intervention. Cognitive-behavioral counseling or

psychotherapy is adjunctive to the freedom in Christ material. The authors of Christ centered

therapy are commendably explicit in identifying the components of their integrative efforts

although the title of the approach might obscure this integration effort from the awareness of the

general public.

Whatever the precise form of the imbalance to these approaches to the relationship

between psychology and theology, whether it be too heavy an emphasis on the psychological

side or the theological side, or whether it represents an imbalance in how the method is presented

to the public, the limitations of these approaches remain as substantive issues we need to address.

An Ongoing Vision for Balance

Given the fact that imbalance seems to be more common than balance when it comes to

the integrative quest, is it time for us to abandon efforts at balance? Or can one still make a case
 Out of Balance p. 18

for the value of balance in the enterprise and hence to the ongoing need to continue to strive for

it? I am convinced that the goal of balance in the integration enterprise continues to merit our

best efforts and that we should renew our attempts to take both sides seriously. As evangelicals

we must continue to recognize the differences between special and general revelation and to give

priority to Scripture in those rare cases of dispute between the two fields. But we desperately

need scholarship that utilizes the best and most up-to-date scholarship in the biblical and

theological arena, an approach that gets beyond a mere laypersons understanding of the Bible

(Beck & Banks, 1997). At the same time, we need scholars who are willing to master

psychological literature to the extent that they can discriminate between lawful findings and

mere trend to distill material that we must interact with from the perspective of our biblical

worldview. The task is hard (Hodges, 1994). Definitions for the integration quest abound and

do not always agree (Faw, 1998). But these facts should not deter us.

The potential benefits of cross-fertilization between the two fields are immense. Just as

advances in historical, archaeological, and linguistic studies have greatly enriched our

understanding of the text of Scripture, so can informed psychological understanding deepen our

understanding of how the truths of Scripture relate to the human condition. The discipline of

psychology desperately needs the salt and light that trained Christian practitioners can provide

for it. Christians can make a difference. When Brad Johnson and his colleagues challenged

Albert Ellis to reconsider his blatant and frequent attacks on all forms of religious adherence,

Ellis did just that and, somewhat reluctantly, admitted in print that healthy religious affiliation

does in fact exist (Ellis, 1994; Johnson, 1994). When Bergin (1991) assaulted the erroneous but

widely-held contention that psychotherapy was a value-free endeavor, his mastery of data won

the day; now one never hears a secularist trying to maintain that psychotherapy is value-free.
 Out of Balance p. 19

Both fields need each other, and the potential for making solid contributions to each discipline

using a balanced approach remains as strong today as it was when the integration enterprise was

first envisioned over 30 years ago.

Ongoing Threats to Balance

The work of integrating two such different disciplines of knowledge as psychology and

theology is not only difficult, the work must also overcome the difficulty posed by a number of

factors that pose a threat to keeping the two in balance. The size of both fields is enormous, and

any scholar who tries to master not just one but both disciplines faces a monumental challenge.

One measure of the size of these two respective areas of study is the number of students

graduating with post-secondary degrees in psychology and theology. The number of

baccalaureate degrees in psychology continued to rise 1987-1998 while in the same time period

the number of baccalaureate degrees in engineering, business, history and social science

declined. In 1997-1998 nearly 74,000 bachelors degrees were conferred in psychology and

nearly 6,000 in religious studies. In the same school year, nearly 14,000 masters degrees were

conferred in psychology, 5,000 in religious studies; the number of doctorates was 4,000 and

1,500 respectively (Snyder & Hoffman, 2000). The number of academic departments, the size of

faculties, the volume of library materials, and the amount of research necessary to sustain two

such large disciplines is indeed staggering. A second measure of size relates to the number of

journals related to psychology (approximately 1, 500) and to religious and theological studies

(approximately 850) (Ulrichs, 2001). How can the scholar who wants to keep up with both

disciplines possibly master all of this material?

Even if researchers confine their studies to one topic, the task of keeping current is

monumental. If you look at articles dealing with emotion in the ATLA Religion database you
 Out of Balance p. 20

would have to scan 180 of them. Or if you wanted to look at secular articles dealing with

forgiveness as listed in the Psych Info database you would have to read nearly 600 of them. The

sheer size of the two fields poses a threat to balance. It is far easier for the scholar to be familiar

with one of the two disciplines than it is to be current in both fields.

Future Directions

Should we then abandon our efforts to pursue integration in a truly balanced fashion

giving substantial attention to both psychological and theological? Me genoito. We need to

experiment with collaborative teams when possible, a theologian or biblical scholar pairing with

a psychologist to advance the cause of balanced integration. We need to urge our graduate

programs in psychology at both the masters and doctoral degree levels to invest in theological

and biblical training that contains the building blocks of the disciplines rather than just

predigested materials (Beck, 1992). Psychologists are in great need of training in how to handle

biblical and theological material in an informed manner. Given the difficulty of the task, we may

have to delay efforts to build a grand theory to support a creation psychology and focus instead

on more doable projects. And we need to continue involving scholars from third disciplines such

as philosophy to continue the fruitful endeavors that have been occurring in the past decade.

Abandon the cause of balanced integration? Never. Lets continue to face the challenge

of advancing the cause of Christ by bringing our theological and biblical convictions to the

psychological table so we can conquer the discipline for Him.

 Out of Balance p. 21

References

Adams, J. E. (1972). Competent to counsel. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed

Publishing Company.

Anderson, N. T., Zuehlke, T. E., & Zuehlke, J. S. (2000). Christ centered therapy: The

practical integration of theology and psychology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan

Publishing House.

Beck, J. R. (1992). The role of theology in the training of Christian psychologists. Journal of

Psychology and Theology, 22 (2), 99-109.

Beck, J. R. (1997). Sola scriptura: Then and now. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 16

(4), 293-302.

Beck, J. R. (2001). Self and soul: Exploring the boundary between psychotherapy and spiritual

formation. Workshop presented at CAPS Southwest, Albuquerque, NM, October 26.

Beck, J. R., & Banks, J. W. (1992). Christian anti-psychology: Hints of an historical analogue.

Journal of Psychology and Theology, 20 (1), 3-10.

Beck, J. R., & Banks, J. W. (1997). Integration training in the seminary crucible. Journal of

Psychology and Theology, 25 (2), 183-185.

Bergin, A. (1991). Values and religious issues in psychotherapy and mental health. American

Psychologist, 46, 394-403.

Bidwell, K. (2001, February 5). Deliverance debate. Christianity Today, 45 (2), 18-19.

Bobgan, M., & Bobgan, D. (1989). Prophets of psychoheresy, I. Santa Barbara, CA: EastGate

Publishers.

Boyd, J. H. (1994). Affirming the soul: Remarkable conversations between mental health

professionals and an ordained minister. Cheshire, CT: Soul Research Institute.

 Out of Balance p. 22

Boyd, J. H. (1996). Reclaiming the soul: The search for meaning in a self-centered culture.

Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press.

Boyd, J. H. (1998). A history of the concept of the soul during the 20th century. Journal of

Psychology and Theology, 26 (1), 66-82.

Browning, D. S. (1987). Religious thought and the modern psychologies. Philadelphia: Fortress

Press.

Bulkley, E. (1993). Why Christians cant trust psychology. Eugene, OR: Harvest House

Publishers.

Carter, J., & Narramore, S. B. (1979). The integration of psychology and theology. Grand

Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Clinton, S. M. (1990). The foundational integration model. Journal of Psychology and

Theology, 18 (2), 115-122.

Cole, D. T. (1998). Against the integration of psychology and Christianity: A bold proposal for

an alternative paradigm. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 17 (3), 210-219.

Collins, G. R. (2000). An integration view. In E. L. Johnson & S. L. Jones (Eds.), Psychology

and Christianity: Four views (pp. 102-129). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Cooper, J. W. (1989). Body, soul, and life everlasting: Biblical anthropology and the monism-

dualism debate. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Ellis, A. (1994). My response to Dont throw the therapeutic baby out with the holy water:

Helpful and hurtful elements of religion. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 13 (4),

323-326.

Erickson, M. J. (1985). Christian theology, 3 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.

 Out of Balance p. 23

Farnsworth, J. D. (1982). The conduct of integration. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 10,

308-319.

Faw, H. W. (1998). Wilderness wanderings and promised integration: The quest for clarity.

Journal of Psychology and Theology, 26 (2), 147-157.

Foster, J. D., Horn, D. A., & Watson, S. (1988). The popularity of integration models, 1980-

1985. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 16 (1), 3-14.

Garzon, F., Hardy, P., Smith, C., Borden, C., Cagle, R., Jageman, M. A., & Simonaviciute, G.

(2001). Theophostic ministry: Case study data suggests research is warranted. Paper

presented at the annual convention of the Christian Association for Psychological

Studies, Richmond, VA.

Garzon, F., Paloma, M. M., Gorsuch, R., Borden, C. R., & Tjersland, T. (2001). Theophostic

ministry (healing of memories): Initial survey data. Paper presented at the annual

convention of the Christian Association for Psychological Studies, Richmond, VA.

Hodges, B. H. (1994). Faith-learning integration: Appreciating the integrity of a shop-worn

phrase. Faculty Dialogue, 22, 95-106.

Hunsinger, D. V. D. (1995). Theology and pastoral counseling: An interdisciplinary approach.

Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Hunsinger, D. V. D. (2001). An interdisciplinary map for Christian counselors: Theology and

psychology in pastoral counseling. In M. R. McMinn & Phillips, T. R. (Eds.), Care for

the soul (pp. 218-240).

Ingram, J. A. (1997). Modern and postmodern issues in Christian psychology: An integrative

transmodern proposal. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 25 (3), 315-328.

 Out of Balance p. 24

International Church Council (1999). Concerning counseling: Affirmations and Denials.

Unpublished manuscript.

Johnson, E. L., & Jones, S. L. (2000). Psychology and Christianity: Four views. Downers

Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Johnson, W. B. (1994). Albert Ellis and the religionists: A history of the dialogue. Journal

of Psychology and Christianity, 13 (4), 301-311.

Jones, D. R., Ripley, J. S., Kurusu, T. A., & Worthington, E. L. (1998). Influential sources in the

integration of psychology and theology. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 17 (1),

43-54.

Jones, S. L., & Butman, R. E. (1991). Modern psychotherapies: A comprehensive Christian

appraisal. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Myers, D. G. (2000). A levels-of-explanation view. In E. L. Johnson & S. L. Jones (Eds.),

Psychology and Christianity: Four views (pp. 54-83). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity

Press.

Piedmont, R. L., Williams, J. E. G., & Ciarrocchi, J. W. (1997). Personality correlates of ones

image of Jesus: A historiographic analysis using the Five-Factor Model of personality.

Journal of Psychology and Theology, 25 (3), 364-373.

Powlison, D. (2000). A biblical counseling view. In E. L. Johnson & S. L. Jones (Eds.),

Psychology and Christianity: Four views (pp. 196-225). Downers Grove, IL:

InterVarsity Press.

Rieff, P. (1966). The triumph of the therapeutic: Uses of faith after Freud. London: Chatto &

Winders.
 Out of Balance p. 25

Roberts, R. C. (1993). Taking the word to heart: Self & other in an age of therapies. Grand

Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Roberts, R. C. (2000). A Christian psychology view. In E. L. Johnson & S. L. Jones (Eds.),

Psychology and Christianity: Four views (pp. 148-177).

Roberts, R. C. (2001). Outline of Pauline psychotherapy. In M. R. McMinn & T. R. Phillips

(Eds.), Care for the soul: Exploring the intersection of psychology & theology (pp. 134-

163). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Schultz, D. P., & Schultz, S. E. (2001). Theories of personality, 7th Ed. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth.

Snyder, T. D., & Hoffman, C. H. (2000). Digest of education statistics. Washington, DC: U. S.

Department of Education.

Sorenson, R. L. (1996a). The tenth leper. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 24 (3), 197-211.

Sorenson, R. L. (1996b). Where are the nine? Journal of Psychology and Theology, 24 (3),

179-176.

Staton, R., Sorenson, R. L., & Vande Kemp, H. (1998). How students learn integration:

Replication of the Sorenson model. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 26 (4), 340-

350.

Ulrichs periodical directory (2000), 39th Ed, Vol 3. New Providence, NJ: R. R. Bowker.

Welch, E., & Powlison, D. (1997). Every common bush afire with God: The Scriptures

constitutive role for counseling. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 16 (4), 303-322.