The effects of sin on the science of psychology
May 21st, 2007I said last week that I might address the topic of the distorting effects of sin on psychological writing, and so I will, but I’d like to cover a bit more territory than that.
It is a virtual truism for many Christians that everything humans do is marred by sin. The book of Romans teaches that humans are corrupt, hopeless, and morally and spiritually blind in themselves. When faced with God’s holy standards, sin is actually exacerbated (ch.7). If even human moral activity is marred by sin, then everything humans do is corrupt, including the science of psychology. So psychological research, writing and speaking, reading and hearing, teaching and studying, and counseling and being counseled are marred by sin. What are some implications of this conclusion?
1. Because humans are made in the image of God, they are made for God and enjoy fullest satisfaction only in God. They were made to be theocentric.
2. Being made in God’s image has left in all normal humans a sense of divinity. However, because of original or indwelling sin, we are simultaneously bent towards an autocentric orientation (towards self-centeredness or narcissism). This affects our perceptions, thinking, memories, and interpretations of the world, and our emotions, motives, and actions are ultimately more self-promoting than God-promoting. The former has been termed the noetic effects of sin (Moroney, 1990; Westphal, 1990), but psychologists might term it the cognitive effects of sin; and we might call the latter the carditive effects of sin, since it deals with the heart.
3. Non-Christian psychologies are not even aware of this fundamental cognitive blindness and affective/motivational misdirection, regarding the most important dimensions of human life. Consequently, autocentrism pervades their psychologies.
4. Christian psychology must contend explicitly for theocentrism and resist an implicit autocentrism throughout the entire discipline of psychology.
5. This ultimate psychological sin-dynamic influences some aspects of human functioning (and research and theory about those aspects) more than others. For example, it is most influential in areas of psychology the study of which are the most worldview-dependent: sexual and uniquely human motivation, personality, psychopathology, psychotherapy and counseling, and social relations; and it is less influential in areas of psychology the understanding of which are less worldview-dependent (and more mechanistic): neuropsychology, sensation and perception, animal learning, basic cognitive processes, and drive motivation.
6. Christians in psychology who are not mindful of this dynamic and are relatively unquestioning regarding the underlying worldview assumptions of non-Christian psychology are likely to be more influenced by the cognitive and carditive effects of sin in their psychological work than they are aware.
7. At the same time, since sin affects everyone, it also affects those who are the most aware of these effects, and that in at least two ways: a. Those who are more aware of these effects can become arrogant towards secular psychologists and Christians in psychology who are not as mindful as they are about these cognitive and carditive dynamics, and b. Being aware of these effects doesn’t immunize someone from them, so they too have to be constantly mindful that sin is affecting their thinking, feeling, and acting in autocentric ways of which they are currently unaware, and be constantly working to undermine those effects.
8. There is therefore a continual need to seek God’s wisdom and discernment through personal and public worship and to be open to the wisdom and discernment of others, regarding one’s own blindspots and the influences of remaining sin in one’s own life. This is an important part of a Christian psychology.
References
Moroney, S. (1999). The noetic effects of sin. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Westphal, M. (1990). Taking St. Paul seriously: Sin as an epistemological category. In T. P. Flint (Ed.), Christian philosophy (pp. 200-26). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
May 24th, 2007 at 6:04 am
Eric,
I agree with you very much on this point. I believe the noetic and cardititive (good term by the way) effects of sin have been pretty much marginalized in counseling and psychology discussions, even amoung those who claim to be Christian. I wonder if part of the problem is that most Christian counselors and psychologists have only a rudimentary knowledge of theology at best and so they naturally think in other categories.
For example I was preparing for a class the other day on the causes of extramarital affairs. To a pure psychologist, issues of family of origin, stress, marital satisfaction and other such issues would occur fisrt. These issues are not irrelevant. However, for one who recognizes the darkness of the human heart, there is also the issue of deception. All of us are both victims to and producers of lies. In order to break ones’ marriage vow, one must first rationalize a reason. Where does the capacity and energy for such a rationalization come from? Again, the darkness of the human heart. Maybe a book like C. Plantiga’s Not the Way It’s Supposed to be would be a good text for those wanting to deepen their understaning of this issue.
May 24th, 2007 at 8:38 am
It would appear, however, that individuals who are not of a Christian faith are aware of truth and certainly live out truth (e.g. Ghandi). God gives insight and enlightenment about good and evil to all people. People of other religions exhibit wisdom and live out the truisms of Jesus consistently, yet do not have a belief in Christ, as God. Would you say that people must have a belief in Christ as God, in order to have true enlightenment into the human soul?
May 24th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Certainly, through the blessings of common grace, Paul tells us that “what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.” (Rom 1:19 ESV) Yet he also tells us that we have suppressed the truth about God, and that the only way to understand it is through faith in Christ(vs. 17-18). Common grace has led us to understand much of how we develop physically and emotionally, and we are discovering moment by moment intricacies related to brain functioning and emotional response that bring us closer to an understanding of the connection between the body and mind. These findings among others have contributed greatly to the mutual benefit of mankind.
Yet common grace is a two sided coin. On one side, it is a blessing, giving both regenerate and unregenerate alike the ability to contribute to and benefit from the common good through scientific discovery, art, history, music and literature to name a few. To some Christians, it appears to be a paradox in conflict with covenantal blessings and curses. However, the other side of the coin reveals a hidden curse because common grace is the very thing that allows us to go on thinking that we can rely on our own autonomy to discover the truth about God and His relationship with mankind. Therefore, even the best attempts of science and art to bring comfort to unregenerate man are but an illusion. Eventually every knee shall bow, every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord and the foundation of naturalism will fall in on itself in utter hopelessness. This is why a truly Christian psychology must be informed by our theology and not the other way around.
May 27th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Anne, not at all. Those not having Christian faith are still made in God’s image and have perceptual and reasoning powers, and a conscience, and so have the capacity to live highly moral lives. My point is simply that, according to a Christian psychology, sin influences all people (including Christians) and therefore all psychologists, and therefore, we must not be naive about the noetic (or cognitive) and carditive distortions inevitable in the theory, research, and practice of modern psychology, particularly since it does not recognize sin’s influence.
June 8th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Eric, your response to Anne was well put and I’ll add that the word “sin” itself has a negative connotation in today’s culture and I think many avoid the word and its meaning altogether.
June 25th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Dr. Johnson,
I recently came upon your comments and, although I may be a bit late to join the discussion, nevertheless felt compelled to express my wholehearted agreement with your position. I sincerely appreciate this dialogue around the too often unquestioned acceptance of the anthropocentric philosophy of secular psychology. It seems to me that Christian psychology must continue to clearly and emphatically refine the centrality of its theocentric and scriptural foundation as we reclaim responsibility for the study of the soul. This discussion of the implications of the distorting effects of sin on our thought processes, and other similar topics I noticed in this blog, are critical components of this refinement. The positions advocated will depend entirely upon one’s ontological, epistemological, metaphysical, and ultimately theological orientation and the worldview that is developed from those orientations. For those of us who hold to a Judeo-Christian morality, there are moral absolutes that are divinely ordained and for which we are held accountable. All people are created imago Dei and inherent within each of us is a free will and a divinely placed conscience designed to provide a priori moral direction based on these absolutes. Alternatively, one must either hold to a postmodern view of moral relativism wherein each individual is his or her own “god” who determines right and wrong on a personal level (“There is a way that seems right to a man….”) or an ethnocentric moral determinism that often leads to various forms of perverted fanaticism.
Nevertheless, thinking sinfully goes far beyond sinful thoughts and behavior…it affects our ability to think. The Fall so corrupted our nature that it is impossible for anyone to consistently think, much less behave, without sin (Romans 3:10-12, Romans 7:7-25, 1 Corinthians 2:14, 1 John 1:8). In other words, as a result of original sin, “we are not free not to sin” and similarly “we are not free not to think sinfully.” (Although as Christians, we are free to struggle in the process of progressive sanctification as we “work out our own salvation.”) Practically speaking, therefore, all psychological theories are a product of this distorted thinking and are inevitably value-laden. Investigation of their underlying ontological values reveals one of three basic views of human nature: (a) we are “born good” (e.g., Rogers) or (b) we are “born neutral” (e.g., Skinner) or (c) we are “born sinful” (e.g., Adams, Roberts, Sisemore, etc). As a result, secular theorists and practitioners will either pathologize or normalize sinful behavior while their Christian counterparts, in varying degrees, moralize behavior based on their faith and hermeneutical understanding of Scripture.
The cognitively distorting effects of the Fall disturb our understanding of the created realm in dissimilar ways. These resulting noetic effects of sin are moderated to some degree, as posited by theologians such as Emil Brunner, who explained that the noetic effects of sin were variable depending upon the area of human knowledge being studied. His model of “concentric circles of effect” illustrates what he called “the disturbance of rational knowledge by sin” which reached “its minimum in the exact sciences” and “its maximum in theology” (Moroney, 1999). Thus, although our thinking and the object of our intellectual inquiry, God’s creation, are both affected by the Fall, the extent of the effects differ based upon the nature of our investigation. For example, the exact sciences, which Brunner describes as least affected by the Fall, are the basis for man’s inquiry into much of the natural realm. However, he is correct in his warning that when man’s inquiries turn to theology and philosophy (and to a slightly lesser extent, psychology) that “the disturbance of rational knowledge by sin” is greatest and therefore our conclusions are the least reliable (Moroney, 1999). However, pride too often refuses to recognize this epistemic disturbance in our thinking and we thus accept our conclusions without question in the name of science.
The implications of a Christian theocentric view are far-reaching in both our research and practice in the study of the soul. However, Christian psychology has great potential only insofar as we humbly heed your admonition that, as Christian psychologists and counselors, we remain vigilant of the distorting effects of sin in our own thinking. We owe it to our Savior and the clients we serve in His name to consistently rely upon the guidance of the Holy Spirit as we cautiously consider various theoretical constructs and research findings – always trusting in Scripture as the only reliable source and ultimate arbiter of truth.
References
Moroney, S.K. (1999). How sin affects scholarship: A new model. Christian Scholar’s Review, 28, 432-451.
June 30th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
“This is why a truly Christian psychology must be informed by our theology and not the other way around.”
“…”sin” itself has a negative connotation in today’s culture and I think many avoid the word and its meaning altogether.”
Your site is interesting; to say the least…I was hoping for more, I admit…I found it on a link; I am in the medical field and have a son that is Bipolar Type I and paranoid schizoid after a major psychotic crisis. Sadly, I am thinking that none of you would know what to do with him. Part of his paranoia now is an obsession with demons and a professed disbelief in God and a belief that he himself is evil and this causes him great pain and begged me to go back in time and abort him….so that he would hever have been born…and never have to die…and never be taken to hell by the Voice Play that will torture him for telling us of his existence.
And I am afraid it is my own fault for attempting to cast out the demons…which in all reality may very well be only the projection of his own mind and multiple fantasy games mired with theology and fundamentalist talk of demons.
What WOULD God say to me, if I asked him why my son was tormented so? and me so…for not being able to find a way to heal him?
How COULD God’s power not be absolute in this world for a Bible believing Christian? Where is mercy in this? Why do “good” people suffer? Why do children starve in this world?
Could it be that God set up the world to run on it’s own, and that our neurology screws up sometimes just like our kidneys do? Can we get waking and sleeping states mixed up? Come to believe in nightmares? and confuse the theology we here? Where is “sin” in all this?
It certainly all blows my mind. Natural consequences.
It saddens me and maybe it shouldn’t is to see the jargon by which you justify and limit your own thought processes; particularly in this didactic discussion of sin. You are all obviously intelligent people…I just wonder if you are viewing the truth through your own brand of blinders.
Sin has a negative connotation for many reasons, I am sure; but not the least of which because there are individuals associated with groups that are self-appointed specialists in picking them out to the very letter of the law. (and often projecting their “own” sins) And though you cite the necessity of the guidance of the Holy Spirit; I don’t see any acknowledgement or description of exactly what “sin” is…as though all people, even Christians…are in agreement about it…but it carries a heavy emotional and rational semantic load….not to mention the subject of many theological debates over the centuries.
As I finally understood it when I was born again, sin is ANYTHING that is against the perfect will of God. Most, of which, is certainly NOT deliberate. None of us have the fullness and wisdom of the mind of God…all knowing, with all wisdom, and knows every effect from every possible cause. The bible is a guideline, but it is not exhaustive. And it begins, as it ends, with truth. Truth transcends all and is not well contained within a rigid theology.
The pure in heart search for truth, and that is where we find God. Did it and God not exist outside of our theology Abraham would never have heard God and Christ would never have been called a priest out of the order of Melchisidek.
Sometimes the whole truth IS is counterintuitive with our legal codes and theologies; as Jesus demonstrated when accused of laboring on a Sabbath when he was doing his healing…reminded his accusers that if a donkey fell into a well on the Sabbath they would and should lift him out.
The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.
And all truth is God’s truth.
And that leads us to wonder what the perfect will of God is which leads us to a whole ‘nother kettle of fish and multiple Christian denominations that disagree…but without the Word and the guidance of the living Holy Spirit truth could not be known.
It is written in the Old Testament that if God were to withdraw his Spirit from the world that all life would perish.
A man is good, even as he is good.
All the theological learning in the world cannot compensate for the fullness of the righteousness and truth of the Holy Spirit which sees beyond our frailties and works through imperfect vessels.
Somehow this discussion reminds me of the biblical discussions the Pharasees had amongst themselves in figuring out why Jesus was a devil, very dry and jargonistic and true…the word “sin” has negative connotations in the world because it is the self-righteous that generally use the term…and ironically it was the accuser that made us aware of it and possibly continues to do so now.
The living truth is not a book of rules. It is much more; and God is not limited by our theologies. Abraham stopped along his journey to give sacrifice to a priest after the order of Melchisedek; and when Abraham with a clear heart looked for the Maker in the desert, He showed himself. It is written that Jesus is a priest after the order of Melchisedek…before Judaism, before Christianity…God was still God…and truth was still truth. This remains so.
It is written that He would have mercy over judgement.
And if this reply goes through whicb I doubt, you are probably thinking I am manic or obsessing. Maybe the latter…but I feel better now for sharing. And incidentally…I have come to the conclusion that we are all a little nuts each in our own way. It’s just a matter of degree and ability to fit within a supportive worldview group.
July 2nd, 2007 at 2:39 pm
cej: Today is my first to read on this site and I found and read this post of yours. Then I read all the ones previous (except I skimmed over Michaels. It is too esoteric for me.)
Let me respond, not as an intellectual of psychology, which I am not. I am just a person who has struggled with perhaps similar questions as yours.
You ask: What WOULD God say to me, if I asked him why my son was tormented so? and me so…for not being able to find a way to heal him?
I suspect God would answer you in the same way He answered Job in his suffering.
Yet, although our suffering is under His providence He does not willingly grieve and His mercies are continual towards us. (see: Lamentations 3:21-33)
Consider the life of David Brainard. Why did God allow his body such physical and mental affliction?
Consider the life of William Cowper whose mind was frequently shackled by black depression, who died fearing that he was rejected by God…yet Cowper had written “There is a fountain filled with blood”
These are two of the books I read about these men.
http://tinyurl.com/3c93rk
http://tinyurl.com/32wojq
Another book which spoke deeply to me is a childrens novel.
http://tinyurl.com/3487mu
In this book there is a hymn which the one character sings during his lucid moments. Thinking about it, I consider the truth in the words of that hymn –Add to it– the fact that there are those, and have been through history, like that character, like your son,–Add to it– (1 Corinthians 4:3,4 and Hebrews 4:12-14) None of us knows even our own heart. God alone knows your son. Only God knows that dividing place between his physical and spiritual. No matter the psychosis that may rule a life, because of God we may also sing “All is Well, All is Well”
Praise to our God, the Father of Mercies and comfort. (2Cor.1:3)
Praise to our God, the Son who bore all our sorrows.(Isaiah 53)Praise be to Him through whom we may approach the God of Mercy and Grace(Hebrews 4:14-16)
Praise to God, the Spirit who helps us in our weakness and groans for us before God(Romans 8:26)
Praise be to God, the Spirit who is our advocate, our comforter. (John 14:16,18)
(Psalm 95:6)Come! Lets bow down and worship! Let’s kneel before the Lord, our Creator!
July 2nd, 2007 at 3:56 pm
To cej:
Dear, dear sister, I’m so sorry that my blog has caused such distress, but I want to make clear that I was not attempting there an explanation of how sin is involved in the development of psychopathology, like bipolar or a paranoid schizoid condition. I was only addressing the role of sin in the thinking of psychologists (including Christian psychologists). I agree with so much of what you said, I found it hard to understand why it seemed that what I wrote was so opposite to your views. My heart goes out to you and to your son regarding his tragic condition. I believe that human life is so disordered in this age, that human brains can be terribly damaged in many ways. But for a fuller discussion of my understanding of how psychopathology can be understood holistically, in terms of biological, psychosocial, ethical, and spiritual dynamics, I would direct you to a chapter in “Foundations of Soul Care,” published by InterVarsity and due out in September. And I hope you will not write off our organization over what seems to me to be an unfortunate misunderstanding.