SCP 11-3

IN THIS ISSUE: The Chasm Between Me and My Body Page 3 | What is a Christian Psychology? Page 5

VOLUME 11 | ISSUE 3

THE NEWSLETTER OF THE SOCIETY FOR CHRISTIAN PSYCHOLOGY

RENEWAL | Volume 11, Issue 3

Renewal is published by the American Association of Christian Counselors.

President: Tim Clinton SCP Director: Nicolene Joubert Graphic Designer: Amy Leach Cole The American Association of Christian Counselors is chartered in Virginia and dedicated to promoting excellence and unity in Christian counseling. The purpose and objectives of AACC and the programs that it sponsors are strictly informative, educational, and affiliative. Views expressed by the authors, presenters, and advertisers are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of Renewal , the Society for Christian Psychology, or the American Association of Christian Counselors. Renewal , the SCP, and the AACC do not assume responsibility in any way for members’ or subscribers’ efforts to apply or utilize information, suggestions, or recommendations made by the organization, the publications, or other resources. All rights reserved. Copyright 2025. Questions or comments regarding Renewal should be addressed to: Renewal Editorial Office, P.O. Box 739, Forest, VA 24551

Aligning Mind, Body, and Spirit: A CHRISTIAN APPROACH TO HEALING THROUGH LOGOTHERAPY AND INTEGRAL THEORY

AMY OBERG, MSP, BCCC

P sychology is the study of the soul or the intangible distinct spirit within every hu man. God created humans to live in His presence so aligning that human soul in a fallen world can be a difficult task. Christian Psy chology studies the alignment of the soul in mind, body, and spirit as it walks with Jesus…yet on earth.

AACC Member Services: 800.526.8673 | aacc.net

It is imperative to address the human mind, body, and spirit separately and becoming more whole in the process. There are circumstances, suffering and trauma which create brokenness and damage in the human soul. Two therapies, Logotherapy and Inte gral theory, can be used as a salutogenic approach to offer healing to the human soul in a fallen world.

Salutogenesis centers on the origins of health—what cre ates it, sustains it, and helps maintain it, even amidst the chaos of life. Rather than focusing on what causes illness, salutogenesis emphasizes what keeps us strong and well. It would not be surprising to be more familiar with the patho genic approach, which dominates the modern healthcare sys tem. In this model, people visit doctors to report symptoms of illness, receive a diagnosis, and pursue treatment—often medical or pharmaceutical. While we can all appreciate the life-saving advancements of modern medicine, a downside of this diagnosis-driven, pathogenic focus is that it often overlooks the whole person, who is intricately created with mind, body, and spirit in a tridirectional relationship. Each part affects the other positively or negatively searching and desiring equanimity (Weber, 2021). Salutogenesis is a rapidly growing field dedicated to promoting health by exploring the interconnected biological, psychological, social, and spiritual factors, assets and resources that contribute to overall well being. The 21st century culture is laced with comfort, ease and efficiency—making most humans feel crazy or simply hang ing on by a thread through chaotic circumstances of life. So much of humanity is spent out of alignment, working against, or dysregulated with the way God intended his creation to work and function. Emotional stability, or equanimity, is achieved by aligning and balancing the biological, psycho logical, social, and spiritual aspects of a person. Humans can seek and learn to live within the capacities and limitations of mind, body, and spirit building intentional alignment with God’s creation. Before moving on to therapy, practice, or coaching, we must address a bigger question: “ Does health exist?” Genera tion Z is having a hard time believing if health even exists and this doubt seems to be seeping into every generation (Jia & Li, 2024). The pathogenic approach finds everything and any thing that is wrong…deficiency, error, or defect. In a world full of diagnosis-focused care, there is no lack of uncovering disease or decay in the human body. Often referred to as sick care , defeat and discouragement has changed the way people cognitively think of general health. So many people wait until something is wrong to seek medical care, making medical in tervention a necessary avenue for treatment. Understanding health feels as if it has been reduced to a number on a blood test, the word diet has become fad dieting, instead of simply the food that is consumed, and the medical specialties have splintered conclusions creating pharmaceutical overlap gener ating a life of symptoms and ignoring the person as a whole. Change requires change. The answer to the philosophical question ‘Does health exist for humans in a fallen world?’ is yes. Humans can thrive in the limitations on earth by work ing with God’s creativity and diversity. Health in mind, body, and spirit is available. This does not mean perfected health or health prosperity is an option or goal, but a thriving healthy alignment of mind, body and spirit is plausible. First, stop the thought damage, God is love and the source of all good ness. The human body, mind, and spirit are God’s masterpiece (Ephesians 2:10, New International Version). Humans have been given the ability to love and find God’s goodness in life. Just because it is a fallen world does not mean God’s goodness ceases to exist—even though it will take human effort to find, align, and render it. There is wisdom in addressing the un derlying question, “ Does health exist?,” by ensuring the client’s belief that God’s goodness can provide health to the mind, body, and spirit.

RENEWAL THE NEWSLETTER OF THE SOCIETY FOR CHRISTIAN PSYCHOLOGY

2

The alignment process requires intentional methods and interventions for the mind, body, and soul and a person committed to growth, development, and maturing into the masterpiece God intended. It would be a disservice to a client to assume that one program fits all situations or circumstances.

n Mind: How do I approach problems—am I thinking about them in a way that promotes growth and understanding? What emotional patterns need to mature or evolve? How can I re spond to situations in healthier ways? n Body: How do my behaviors reflect my inner values and thoughts? Am I treating my body as an integral part of my spiritual and emotional life? How do I nurture my body? What role does physical health play in my overall well-being? n Spirit: How is my relationship with God evolving? How can I deepen my spiritual practice? How do I experience the sacred in everyday life? Am I growing in compassion, humility, and love for others? What blocks my spiritual development? The alignment process requires intentional methods and interven tions for the mind, body, and soul and a person committed to growth, development, and maturing into the masterpiece God intended. It would be a disservice to a client to assume that one program fits all situations or circumstances. There are many methods and therapies which need to be blended to address the proper order for the personal needs of the client. The soul desires alignment in mind, body, and spirit. Christian psychology addresses circumstances, suffering and trauma which create brokenness and damage of the human soul. Isaiah 61 says that Jesus came to heal the brokenhearted which is translated ‘shattered’ (Isaiah 61:1, NIV). Jesus came to heal the shattered life of living on earth without him. A salutogenic approach through Logotherapy and Integral theory can be utilized to heal and align some of the deeper brokenness to the way God desired for us to be with him. True freedom from living in a fallen world will only come meeting God face to face; however, the human soul can thrive and align to live in the abundance of life that God promises. C

Two specific theories could be utilized considering aligning the mind, body and spirit: Integral Theory and Logotherapy. While cog nitive behavioral therapy covers a gamut of biblical thought renewal options, these two theories go into a deeper meaning and new levels of healing by providing an avenue to search for holistic health, growth, and meaning. Logotherapy is fundamentally salutogenic because it emphasizes the search for meaning as central to health and well-being (Frankl, 2006). Viktor Frankl argued that finding meaning, even in dif ficult situations, is key to psychological and emotional resilience. Inte gral Theory also aligns with salutogenesis by promoting a balanced and integrated approach to well-being. It emphasizes the development of all dimensions of the human experience (mind, body, spirit) and encour ages growth across these areas to promote health and well-being. Logotherapy: Healing requires more than a new thought; it requires a true belief with action according to that belief. This focus on mean ing helps individuals ask fundamental questions such as: “Why do I do what I do?,” or “Do I find meaning in what I do?” This perspective helps someone thrive in the face of adversity, aligning the thought process with convictions followed by an appropriate behavior. By helping indi viduals transcend suffering through meaning, Logotherapy promotes mental and emotional health, moving them from a state of despair to ward hope, purpose, and a sense of fulfillment. So often, I hear people say things like, “I don’t know why I do that,” or “I do it this way because this is the way I was taught.” That thought process does not create meaning or value in life, it simply proves the conditioning or learned behavior. One vignette of this theory would be a 35-year-old woman who has followed in the footsteps of the family business. She is burned out, un fulfilled, empty and is questioning her life. Why am I doing this and how did I get here? In a therapy setting, she would have to dig deep to under stand true values and beliefs about who she was created to be within her family and outside her family. She must ask herself if her work aligns with her purpose and is this the meaning or legacy she wants to create in her career? She may discover that she truly enjoys this field, and it aligns with her convictions and core belief. But she may also dis cover this is not exactly what she wanted to do implicating a malalign ment in her mind, body, and soul. If it does not reflect her personal convictions, she will need to explore the root of her convictions to align with her thought process and create a new behavior. Whether she de cides to stay understanding new meaning in her work or if she decides to pivot and move on to something new, she has promoted her own well-being by identifying meaning, purpose, and a sense of fulfillment. Biblically, many people find addressing identity in Christ and walking in godly character creates the alignment of conviction of the spirit, understanding the thought process of the mind and walking out the expression of behavior in the body. Integral Theory: This theory focuses on holistic growth and prog ress which is the presence of ongoing development and alignment across physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual domains (Wilber, 2000). This approach builds positive resources and fostering growth rather than merely treating symptoms. These questions would be more multifaceted for affecting growth in all areas through the tridirectional relationship.

AMY OBERG MSP, BCCC, owner of Hope & Health Hub, offers mental health coaching, con sulting, and online mental health tools. She is the author of six books, including What’s in My Cloud: Cloud Tool for Littles, and three Cloud Tool Jour nals: for adults, marriage, and mental health with Gen Z. Married for 23 years, she and her husband have one married daughter and two grandchil dren. Learn more at amyoberg.com.

References Frankl, V. E. (2006). Man’s search for meaning. Beacon Press. Jia, C., & Li, P. (2024). Generation Z’s health information avoidance behavior: insights from fo cus group discussions. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 26 . Strong, J. (2009). Strong’s exhaustive concordance of the Bible (Updated ed.). Hendrickson Publish ers. The Holy Bible, New International Version. (1978). Zondervan. (Original work published 1973). Weber, J. (2021). A systematic literature review of equanimity in mindfulness-based interven tions. Pastoral Psychology, 70 (2), 151-165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11089-021-00945-6 Wilber, K. (2000). A theory of everything: An integral vision for business, politics, science, and spiritual ity. Shambhala Publications.

RENEWAL THE NEWSLETTER OF THE SOCIETY FOR CHRISTIAN PSYCHOLOGY

3

THE CHASM BETWEEN ME AND MY BODY

V. ELLSWORTH LEWIS, PH.D. E nvision a Hessian fortress built before Thomas Aquinas took First Communion. To the east, see Suleiman the Magnificent, Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, laying siege to Vienna. Hear the Holy Roman Emperor decree Catholicism the imperial religion, and Luther a heretic and enemy of the realm. Note that the term “protestant” is newly coined, following the anti-protestant Edict of Worms. Heresy is a capital offense, and Luther survives thanks to the protection of a Saxon nobleman, Frederick the Wise. Such is the setting when Luther and Zwingli are summoned to Marburg Castle in 1529—implored by princes to unify Protestants under common articles of faith in hopes of withstanding the existential threats of that era.

“I would rather drink pure blood with the Pope, than mere wine with the fanatics.” – Martin Luther, Luther’s Works 37, 317

RENEWAL THE NEWSLETTER OF THE SOCIETY FOR CHRISTIAN PSYCHOLOGY

4

Although Luther and Zwingli sat just meters apart, one might say they were separated by a crevasse. With chalk, Luther wrote “Hoc Est Corpus Meum” (This is My Body) on the refectory table, covering this inscription with red velvet as a priest might veil the chalice. When 15 Articles of Marburg were drafted, 14 found common ground. The 15th stated that “… at present we are not agreed as to whether the true body and blood are bodily present in the bread and wine.” The failure was monumental, driving a wedge between Lutheran and Reformed. Luther was viewed as too literal and mystical, and Zwingli as overly historical and conceptual. Either way, 50 theologians could not slay Chimera; she remained a fire-breathing enigma. But what was the true nature of the impasse? Rhetoric aside, it was not chemical: no one believed that wafers become carpaccio. Sola scriptura notwithstanding, the dispute was not ultimately scriptural. Anyone familiar with The Summa Theologiæ knew that both Zwingli’s prooftext (“the flesh profits nothing”) and his argument regarding God’s location (“at the right hand of God”) were lifted from it. Both are drawn from Part III, Question 75, Article 1: Whether the body of Christ be in this sacrament in very truth, or merely as in a figure or sign? Likewise, Luther’s chalked response is precisely St. Thomas’ answer—to which Aquinas added, “He is the Truth, He lieth not.” Using Aristotle’s distinction between substantia (essence or being) and accidens (non essential properties), Aquinas taught that the elements could not be naively equated with flesh and blood. “The presence of Christ’s true body and blood in this sacrament cannot be detected by sense, nor understanding, but by faith alone, which rests upon Divine authority.” Is this written by Luther or by Aquinas? (It is Aquinas.) The Marburg Colloquy failed, more precisely, because the Eucharist became a proxy for the nature of Divine Presence. How can the Transcendent (Godhead) be present in the imminent (bread and wine)? For Luther, the Eucharistic problem derives from the Christological problem and turns on its solution; a paradox in the former allows a paradox in the latter. Both are impenetrable by reason, but acceptable by faith. Zwingli rejected paradoxical (mystical) union, while Luther

rejected disembodied (symbolic) union. Zwingli was willing to view the Lord’s Supper as a memorial, akin to Passover, a historical event to be evermore “taken to heart.” Luther refused to slacken the super verbal force of Corpus Meum . He thought it a fool’s errand to insist on resolving a paradox that is both inherent in Christ’s nature (the God Man) and implicit in His parting words ( my body, my blood). Luther was guarding the portal to a starkly real, bodily encounter with God. The “right hand of God” (where Zwingli had geo-located the Logos) is everywhere. Hence, Christ really is where He says He is. Andreas Osiander, witnessing the debate at Marburg Castle, saw the implications. Christ’s body and blood (whether real or symbolic) pointed to Christ’s promise —the promise of “I in you” (see John 6:56, 14:20, 15:4, 17:23, 26). Osiander must have hoped Luther would more vigorously extend the logic of Corpus Meum to the bodies of the born again. For, in fact, Luther was tantalizingly close to doing so. First, he had written of the paradox of Incarnation; is it not paradoxical that God should descend from heaven, enter the womb, and become God-With-Us? Second, he had written of the relation of human soul to body: “Behold the soul, which is a single creature, and yet at the same time is present throughout the body, even in the smallest toe, so that when I prick the smallest member of the body with a needle, [I] affect the entire soul, and the whole man quivers.” Third, he queried what happens when Christ enters the heart through faith: “You must answer that you have the true Christ; not that he sits in there, as one sits on a chair, but as he is at the right hand of the Father… your heart truly feels his presence, and through the experience of faith you know for certainty that he is there ” (Luther, 1959, pp. 338-340.) If Christ is “bodily present” in the Supper, and bodily present in the heart (where He is felt and experienced), then surely there is no chasm between me and my body! Or is there? When Osiander fleshed out his view of Christ-in-us in 1550, the idea was buried alive. While Osiander died in 1552, Lutheran and Calvinist counter-argument went on for decades. For Osiander, faith was the very vehicle of union; “… faith is the medium of the indwelling of Christ in the human soul.” Once Christ comes to dwell

RENEWAL THE NEWSLETTER OF THE SOCIETY FOR CHRISTIAN PSYCHOLOGY

5

in the heart, God sees only Christ. “Justification,” according to Osiander, “is the mystical union of man with Christ […]. The believer is so embodied in Christ that in this living concrete unity he is flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone” (Baur, p. 338). Phillipp Melancthon responded: “It must be admitted that God dwells in our hearts, not only in such a manner that He there is efficacious, though not present with His own essence, but that he is both present and efficacious. A personal union, however, does not take place in us, but God is present in us in a separable manner as in a separable domicile ” (Bentz, n.d.). So, God is present… but there is no personal union, and He lives in a separate domicile? Other minor prophets of the Reformation echoed Osiander’s search for Christ-in-us. While Osiander focused on the non-corporeal (divine) Christ to more easily conceive His Indwelling, Caspar Schwenckfeld postulated a ubiquitous “celestial body” that is the true object of both communion and union. Hans Denck asserted that Logos should not be equated with Scripture or doctrine. Not only was Logos “made flesh,” but “without him, nothing was made that has been made” (John 1:3, 14). Denck thereby challenged the premise that Christ approaches us only “from the outside”—through preaching and teaching. Christ is always the root of our being, beckoning us also from the depths of our souls. For this, Denck was labeled both mystic and humanist and was driven from city to city in search of Christian welcome till he died of bubonic plague (Steinmetz, 2001). Ironically, in Nuremberg, Osiander had been the first to ostracize Denck. Fractures in theology have legacies in psychology. If the body is bankrupt, before and after turning to Christ, then truth is strictly creedal and is measured by correspondence to orthodoxy (right thinking). Epistemologically, truth is whatever corresponds to something external (e.g., historical, scientific, or scriptural “fact”). The true proposition needs to be impressed first on stubborn minds, then on stubborn flesh. We actively mortify ourselves, as the Puritans taught, shunning the idea that our bodies have anything to teach us. If, on the other hand, the body is grounded in Logos (without faith) and becomes flesh of His Flesh (in faith), then Truth is that which gradually “manifest[s] in our body… in our mortal flesh” (2 Corinthians 4:10-11) as we “present our bodies… holy and acceptable” to God (Romans 12:3). Fulfilling Ezekiel’s prophecy, Christ removes our heart of stone and gives us His heart of flesh. The measure of Truth, under this new dispensation, is progressive softening, listening, and yielding. “Today, when you hear His voice, do not harden your heart” (Psalm 95, Hebrews 3). Mortification is more like molting—more permissive; the active element is refusal to beat the dead horse. Epistemologically, the condition of our soul is not “true,” but recognizably truer when love, joy, or peace prevail. The cognizable portion of this experience surfaces as insight—the “renewal of our minds” (Romans 12:4). The body keeps a far deeper score, which the mind must follow. So, is there a chasm between me and my body? Fault lines of Marburg remain active, rumbling beneath Christian psychology. The terra firma of Christian counseling seems rather Zwinglian— an application of rational interpretations of a historical and conceptual Christ which we strive (God help us) to take in. We suffer when we believe lies and recover when we believe truths. This approach offers an assurance of orthodoxy, a corralling of self-reflection, and a seamlessness between catechism and counseling. The alternative is a more liquid, even oceanic sense of embodied life in Christ. C.S. Lewis hints at it in chapter 11 of Perelandra —a tale inspired by the notion of floating islands. There, the “unhappy distinction between soul and body that resulted from the fall,” becomes illusory. “Even on earth the sacraments existed as a permanent reminder that the division was neither wholesome nor final. The Incarnation had been the beginning of its disappearance.” On Perelandra, the only act forbidden by God is to dwell on Fixed Land. C

Fractures in theology have legacies in

psychology. If the body is bankrupt, before and after turning to Christ, then truth is strictly creedal and is measured by correspondence to orthodoxy (right thinking).

V. ELLSWORTH LEWIS, PH.D., studied philosophy at Wheaton College under Arthur Holmes ( All Truth is God’s Truth ), and was introduced to Soren Kierkegaard by professor of the philosophy of man course, C. Stephen Evans. He then studied clinical psychology at BYU, where he researched under Allen Bergin, and was supervised by an eclectic faculty including Michael Lambert and Gary Burlingame. Dr. Lewis completed his internship in the U.S. Army Medical Department, and has worked in children’s services, medical centers, prisons, and mental health court.

References Baur, F.C. (1847). History of Christian dogma. Edited by Peter C. Hodgson. (2014). https://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/O/osiander andreas-(1).html. Bentz, F. (n.d.). The Osiandrian and Stancarian Controversies. Book of Concord. Retrieved Nov 29, 2024, from https://thebookofconcord.org/introductory-materials/historical-introductions/the-osiandrian-and-stancarian-controversies/ Luther, M. (1959). The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ–Against the Fanatics, 1526, Word and Sacrament II. In Luther’s works, American edition vol 36 . A.R. Wentz and H.T. Lehman (Eds.). Fortress. Steinmetz, D. (2001). Reformers in the wings: From Geiler to Kaysersberg to Theodore Beza. Oxford University Press. Strong, J., & McClintock, J. (1880). The cyclopedia of biblical, theological, and ecclesiastical literature . Haper and Brothers: NY. See https://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/O/osiander-andreas-(1).html.

RENEWAL THE NEWSLETTER OF THE SOCIETY FOR CHRISTIAN PSYCHOLOGY

6

What is a Christian Psychology?

ERIC L. JOHNSON, PH.D.

T he term “Christian psychology” has been used in a variety of ways to refer to things that are in some cases opposed to each other. For example, to some it refers simply to the work of any Christian engaged in the science or practice of psychology; to others it is a derogatory label applied to the work of Christians who compromise their faith by attempting to integrate it with modern psychology. The Society for Christian Psychology is trying to advance a specific understanding of the term (as the reader will see in its mission statement). B ut even the members of the SCP do not entirely agree about what a Christian psychology is. So, it would be presumptuous for anyone to think he or she could provide the authoritative definition of Christian psychology. This article, then, should be seen as simply one attempt to delineate something of what a Christian psychology might be.

The Science of Psychology Most people today understand psychology to be a science, and that is assumed by the SCP. But what is a science? A broad definition would be that a science is an intellectual discipline with its own rules and activities for engaging in a systematic, careful enquiry into a particular object of study. In the case of psychology, the object of study is individual human beings. Its activities include, along with other sciences: research, theory-building, and education and publication (the cultural dissemination of its findings and conclusions), but psychology also includes some applied activities, for example, assessment and the care of souls. All sciences are conducted within and guided by a worldview, a set of foundational assumptions regarding reality (Naugle, 2002; what Watson, 1993, calls a Christian ideological surround). Because of the complexity of individual human beings, worldview assumptions regarding human beings will not all be the same among various well-developed, but distinct intellectual communities, resulting then in different versions of psychology. Christian psychology, then, is that version of the science and practice of psychology grounded in a Christian worldview.

RENEWAL THE NEWSLETTER OF THE SOCIETY FOR CHRISTIAN PSYCHOLOGY

7

BECAUSE OF ITS BROAD ACCEPTANCE, IT IS DIFFICULT TO EVEN RAISE THE ISSUE OF “VERSIONS” OF PSYCHOLOGY AS IT IS SO PERVASIVELY ASSUMED THAT MODERN PSYCHOLOGY IS THE ONLY LEGITIMATE VERSION OF PSYCHOLOGY.

The Hegemony of Modern Psychology If this is true, we would expect that a Christian psychology would be distinguishable in at least some respects from versions of psychology that derive from alternative worldviews, for example, Buddhist, Islamic, Marxist, postmodern, and most importantly, modern psychology , the version that has been the most successful in the West in laying claim to being the only viable version of psychology there is. With few exceptions, it is the only version taught by psychology faculty at American colleges and universities, and it is the only approach represented in most psychology journals and publishing houses. Because of its broad acceptance, it is difficult to even raise the issue of “versions” of psychology as it is so pervasively assumed that modern psychology is the only legitimate version of psychology. However, this simply is not true. To provide an extant, non-Christian example, there is a substantial, distinct literature of Buddhist psychology (e.g., see De Silva, 2001; Kalupahana, 1987; Rygal-Mtshan, 1987; Welwood, 2002). Modern psychology is distinguished by its adherence to the worldview of modernism. Two of major sets of assumptions that constitute the modernist worldview are positivism (see Stroud, 1992) and secularism. Together, positivism and secularism maintain that publicly verifiable, empirical investigation and reason are the only legitimate sources of knowledge (certainly not the supernatural). Confidence in the validity of these two sources makes plausible the ideal of a universal knowledge, that is, an unbiased knowledge solely based on empirical evidence that could be recognized by all rational, well-trained humans, supposedly regardless of worldview . Based on modernism, modern psychology has attempted to develop a universal, secular body of knowledge regarding individual human beings. To achieve this aim, modern psychology followed the lead of the natural sciences and eschewed all axiological assumptions (those dealing with values and ethics) and metaphysical assumptions (those dealing with the nature of things), and sought merely to describe how human beings appear to us and what influences them, without reference to transcendent norms and ontological categories. Modern psychology has been flourishing for over 100 years, and it has developed an extremely rich and varied literature describing human beings. However, in keeping with its worldview, it is universally secular . Christianity, in contrast, has its own legitimate, rational worldview (and has been around a lot longer than modernism!). Consequently, it does not need to submit it’s own thinking about knowledge to the worldview assumptions of secularists. On the contrary, it has some of its own criteria for what counts as knowledge, providing it some distinct sources of psychological knowledge (e.g., the Bible, the Christian tradition, and the Holy Spirit). Some Christian Psychology Distinctives What makes a Christian psychology so important is that those areas of psychology where Christianity’s worldview would lead one to expect it might make a difference have great existential import and significance, for example, in personality theory, motivation, attribution, psychopathology, and psychotherapy and counseling. These areas are terribly important, making it imperative for Christians to seek to develop their own versions in these areas, ones that are more congruent with their community-specific worldview assumptions, and so ones that presumably correspond more to God’s comprehensive understanding of human beings than that which can be attained by only using the methods and models of modernism. Distinctive Features of the Modern Version of Psychology

So, given Christianity’s broader sources of psychological knowledge, what would be some distinctives of a Christian psychology? A basic list would include such topics as the nature of the image of God and a recognition that this is the most fundamental feature of human nature, the ultimate concern of humans, uniquely Christian motivation, the profound alienation of humans from their Creator and original sin, the development of sins and vices, the nature of salvation (and the soul-healing that flows from it), apostasy, stages of Christian spiritual development and some of its unique features, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the Christian, the causal role of God in human good and in the Christian life, Christian self-representations (e.g., the old self and new self), some specifically Christian goals towards which humans are to develop (including the nature of human personhood and Christian maturity), uniquely Christian virtues (faith, hope, humility, and agape-love) and uniquely Christian understandings of a positive psychology, the relation between the body and the soul, ethical and spiritual psychopathology, distinctive means of counseling and psychotherapy that make use of divine salvation, and transcendent norms for social relationships. Those who are inclined and capable need to do research on such matters, along distinctly Christian lines. Of course, Christians in psychology should also explore topics where there is more cross-communal agreement (e.g., between secularists and Christians). But this is already being done (e.g., human forgiveness research). What has not been done—at least not enough to constitute an alternative version of any topic in psychology—is research and theory-building that is distinctly Christian. C

ERIC L. JOHNSON, PH.D., is the Founder and Scholar-in-Residence at Christian Psychology Institute, Author-in-Residence at Sojourn East, and Senior Research Professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Dr. Johnson founded the M.A. in Christian Counseling degree at Houston Christian University where he served as Professor of Christian Psychology. He founded the Society for Christian Psychology division of the AACC, and is the author of Foundations for Soul Care: A Christian Psychology Proposal and God and Soul Care: The Therapeutic Resources of the Christian Faith . He’s married to Rebekah, and has two children and three grandchildren, all of whom he treasures.

References Calvin, J. (1960). Institutes of the Christian religion (F.L. Battles, Trans.). Philadelphia, PA: Westminster. (Original work published 1559) De Silva, P. (2001). An introduction to Buddhist psychology (3rd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. Kalupahana, D. ((1987). The principles of Buddhist psychology. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Kuyper, A. (n.d.). Principles of sacred theology . Associated Publishers and Authors: Wilmington, DE. Kuyper, A. (1998). Abraham Kuyper: A centennial reader (J.D. Bratt, Ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Naugle, D.K. (2002). Worldview: The history of a concept. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Rygal-Mtshan, Y.-S. (1987). Mind in Buddhist psychology. Berkeley, CA: Dharma Publishing. Stroud, B. (1992). Logical positivism. In J. Dancy & E. Sosa (Eds.), A companion to epistemology (pp. 262-265). London: Blackwell. Watson, P. J. (1993). Apologetics and ethnocentrism: Psychology and religion within an ideological surround. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 3 , 1-20. Welwood J. (2002). Toward a psychology of awakening: Buddhism, psychotherapy and the path of personal and spiritual transformation. Shambhala.

RENEWAL THE NEWSLETTER OF THE SOCIETY FOR CHRISTIAN PSYCHOLOGY

8