The Confounding Variables of Sovereignty and Sin

Posted on September 15, 2009

[By Jeremy Lelek, M.A., LPC, President, Association of Biblical Counselors. Jeremy is one of our guest bloggers for the month of September]

 How many readers have ever considered the following, “Statistically, how effective is counseling from a biblical worldview?”  As a biblical counselor, this is a very important question for this author. 

 It is common knowledge in the field of counseling and psychology, that in order for a technique or method to be validated by the profession it must undergo scrutiny through the vigorous process of research.  If a particular method is empirically demonstrated to produce a “significant” outcome through the scientific method, the validity of that technique or model increases among those in the professional community.

 While counseling research can produce very interesting and helpful outcomes, the procedures of the scientific method may fall short when it comes to measuring the effectiveness of counseling from a biblical worldview.  This is due to the fact that a Christian worldview embraces many constructs that are immeasurable, therefore offering the potential to skew the final results of a study.  Such constructs are called confounding variables, and researchers seek to adjust for them as much as possible to acquire accurate scores in their research.  So, what does this have to do with the effectiveness of Christian and biblical counseling?

 2 Timothy 2:24-25 says, “And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness.  God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may escape the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.”

 Within these verses, two confounding variables emerge that will profoundly impact the outcome of the counseling process. 

 First, Paul states the following, “God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth”.  Two things are worthy of consideration here.  One, the believer is encouraged to proclaim the Gospel, never assuming someone is hopelessly lost, regardless of how bad things appear.  Two, a counselor has no choice but to submit to God’s sovereignty as it regards the process of repentance and change.  In truth, a counselor may use a variety of effective biblical methods during the counseling process.  However, in the final analysis it is the Lord who will ultimately grant repentance.  This poses a significant problem for the scientific method of measuring effectiveness since God’s sovereignty cannot be placed under the finite microscope of human calculation.

 Secondly, Paul illuminates the reality of spiritual enslavement when he writes, “and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will”. 

 Counselors who seek to operate from a biblical worldview will find it difficult to ignore the reality of Satan in the lives of people.  From this author’s perspective, the devil is powerless to thwart God’s plans, but counselors do well to bear in mind that people who are unsaved are ultimately captured by him to do his will (i.e., rebel against the one true God).  Notice, Paul uses the phrase “they may escape”.  There is no guarantee that when biblical methods are utilized that people will surely escape the snare of Satan or a heart captured by sin.  And should that be the case, it does not minimize the validity and effectiveness of a biblical method.  Such freedom from bondage, as cited here by Paul, comes from the merciful hand of God.  

 At the end of the day, the question of effectiveness in counseling is a profoundly complex one, especially when discussed in light of the Bible.  Two realities exist that bear consideration when working towards change in the lives of people:  God’s sovereignty and the depravity of man.  By no means does this author suggest that research or the scientific method are vain methods of acquiring important knowledge about people.  On the contrary, much can be learned in this regard.  It is simply worth noting that there are many variables (in addition to the two highlighted here) that are not typically considered in the context of secular research in psychology.  As such, Christians are given the glorious opportunity to critically assess how to best account for them (biblically) in their pursuit of human understanding.

Made in the Image of God: Part 3

Posted on April 14, 2009

[Moderator: This is the final post this month by guest blogger, Ms. Kathrin Halder. Ms. Halder is a member of the Society. She works at IGNIS in Germany.]

We have seen that we are fearfully and wonderfully made by God. And yet we depend, totally, on His continuous speaking of life and love to us—something He chooses to continue even to fallen creation. But now, I’d like to explore the consequences of the fall even though God continues to speak to us.

 

Of course our breaking off with God, our refusal to answer Him did have massive consequences. Thus a paradox becomes apparent. While humanness reflects the original glory of creation, it also, at the same time, reflects the horror of separation of God. As Stanley Grenz puts it:

 

Throughout history thinkers have noted that humans are a strange paradox. We are a mixture of good and evil, of godly beauty and of demonic hideousness, of unlimited potential and of tragic failure. In theological terms, we are God’s good handiwork, but we have fallen into sin. [1]        

 

Therefore we should celebrate God’s beauty in us, but we should at the same time be shocked about the extent of evil being found in us. This ought to lead us to the cross where we can find redemption.

 

Some therefore divide sharply between Christians and Non-Christians, one mainly reflecting fallenness, the other mainly reflecting the restored beauty of creation. Without being able to address everything in this complicated issue, the main discussion in my classes comes to my mind, the question whether a Non-Christian, an unbeliever could or could not love.

 

Some (e.g., Augustine or Luther) see the good deeds of unbelievers as “splendida vitia,” or shining vices, things done to show one’s own goodness, but not out of genuine love. Others (e.g., those within the catholic tradition) see the unbeliever able to love due to the fact that there is remaining substance of the image of God in them.

 

My personal view is that there is love in the life of unbelievers, but not because there remains pure good them but because the relation to God is not totally disconnected (like I said in the last post).

You can take water out of a river (when the wellspring “decides” to allow water to flow into it), it is real good water, but in the end it doesn’t originate there, but in the wellspring. As stated I believe that God still speaks love into the life of fallen man, and they are able to pass on that love.

 

But of course the extent of love also has something to do with our response to God’s love, with the way the river “decides” to open itself more or less to the water out of the wellspring. And of course it will primarily be Christians who will be more receptive here. But I believe and know people who haven’t converted in a clear way yet, but still answer positively to some extent. And, it might be dangerous to say this, but I have met people outside the church that seemed to answer to love more strongly (and I believe they are on their way to find Christ) than some people inside church that on a real level seem to be more reluctant to open their hearts for Christ’s love and calling to pass on that love to a hurting world.

 

Source:

Grenz, Stanley J. (1994): Theology for the Community of God. Nashville: Broadman & Holman


[1]Grenz Stanley, 1994, S. 181

Psychology Words: Narcissism

Posted on June 16, 2008

[Moderator note: This is the third post for June 2008 from our Director, Dr. Eric Johnson (Southern Seminary)]

The term “narcissism” deserves careful analysis from a Christian standpoint. In popular culture, it means a trait of self-centeredness and has negative connotations. However, contributors to object relations theory and self psychology have suggested that humans are born with narcissism, and if children are properly affirmed and challenged, they will grow up with healthy narcissism, that helps them meet their needs and realize their goals, while relating lovingly to others and respecting their needs and goals as well. Problems arise, they suggest, when children are not properly affirmed and challenged, leading them, in extreme cases, to develop narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), which is characterized by an inappropriate sense of self-importance and superiority over others, yet a strong need to be appreciated by others, and a pronounced sensitivity to criticism, all of which illustrates an ongoing effort to repair oneself from earlier relational deprivation.

The following are a few reasons why I think Christians should avoid using the word narcissism in a positive sense, as in “healthy narcissism.”

1) Narcissism was derived from the myth of Narcissus. He was a good-looking lad who fell in love with his image in a pool, became fixated with it, and fell into the pool and drowned. So the origins of the term suggest something unhealthy.
2) Sin is the biblical word for the native self-centeredness with which all humans are born. So narcissism would seem to be a good psychological word for this aspect of sin.
3) Christians have also historically recognized (e.g., Augustine, Jonathan Edwards) that God loves himself supremely. However, his self-love is Trinitarian, consisting of the mutual love of the trinity, so God’s self-love is intrinsically relational. For these and other reasons, we would never say that God is narcissistic in his self-love. Such Christians also concluded that God designed humans with a legitimate self-regard or self-love, similar to the self-preservation instinct of animals, and considered this to be part of the image of God, picturing the self-love that characterizes God, particularly as it develops into neighbor love. However, humans are to love God supremely (like God loves himself) and themselves and others secondarily (like God loves his creation).
4) Sin, however, has distorted and perversely radicalized our created self-love, resulting in a universal narcissism that promotes self above all else and therefore resists God’s supremacy.
5) Improper parenting can aggravate these conditions, resulting in NPD.
6) But the “healthy narcissism” found in “normal” humans, who live as the center of their universe and neglect their Creator, is ultimately no better, no healthier from a Christian standpoint.
7) Therefore, we ought to clearly distinguish sin’s distorted self-love from God’s design for humans. One way to do so would be to use the term narcissism only for that which is always unhealthy and antithetical to the theocentric orientation for which God designed humans, reserving it for the inappropriate self-centeredness of humans that flows from sin, including its distortions in NPD as well as the motivational orientation of apparently “healthy” humans who seek to live independently of God, using other terms—like self-regard or legitimate self-love—for good, God-created motives.

Sin and Christian Psychology: Sin as Pollution

Posted on May 9, 2008

[Guest blogger Dr. Michael McGuire of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary considers the topic of sin from the perspective of Christian Psychology in the first of two posts]

The media is permeated with the compelling image of pollution damaging some pristine ecosystem, an image that portends problem for all humanity. Allow me to use this powerful image to launch a brief consideration of sin and Christian psychology.

In the biblical meta-narrative, God created a universe that was good, harmonious, and at peace. It functioned as it was designed to function. He populated this creation with creatures (angels, humans, and beasts), and He placed humans in a garden where they could live, work, get to know Him, and raise a family. Yet, the humans disobeyed the one rule He had given. They sinned and God placed creation under a curse. We observe Adam and Eve hiding from one anther and then from God. We see them blame others. Work becomes difficult. There are thorns. One child kills the other. Within a few chapters we discover that God needs to destroy most of humanity in order to cleanse the earth from its moral pollution.

Thus sin can be seen as a type of pollution that damages, disrupts and corrupts God’s harmonious creation. Now, this is not a new insight merely following our society’s present focus on the environment, for as seen above, this image is biblical. In addition, this concept can be found in some systematic theologies (for example, “pollution” in Berkhof and “corruption” in Grudem, and “defilement” in Culver).

Before going further, let me make it clear that I am not suggesting this is the only way to think about sin, for the Bible is rich in descriptive words for sin. Sin is characterized as darkness, death, ignorance, wandering off the path, falling short of the mark, and alienation. Yet, each of these negative descriptions of sin corresponds to a positive description of God and what He offers. He offers light, knowledge, life, the path, the standard and reconciliation. Although many of these descriptions are relevant to human behavior and thus Christian psychology, I want us to think about conceptualizing sin as pollution. This way of thinking about sin strikes me as particularly germane to our interests.

How so? The biblical meta-narrative presents the original universe at rest, and it conceives of the final state in a very similar way. The problems that occur in between are then associated with the time of sin and curse. Or we might say that God created a functional creation, sin polluted creation causing dysfunction, and God will one day again make things functional. This is relevant to those interested in Christian psychology for we live in this “in between time,” this time of dysfunction. We see individuals, marriages, and families that are not functioning as God designed them to function. We can at times make out the beauty of the original design, but we also see pollution, some tracing its origin to the original pollution, some created by other humans, and some self-generated. Even those who have sought to avoid the corruption that is in the world find themselves vexed by the pollution around them. One must wonder what the incarnation might have been like for the second member of the Trinity. The pure One living in a morally polluted and dysfunctional world. Little wonder that He was predicted by Isaiah to be a “man of sorrows.”

Thus, conceptualizing sin as pollutions is particularly relevant to those interested in thinking Christianly about humans, including their functioning and dysfunctioning. This is an image that we should recapture, for the image likely draws its remarkable force from the original moral pollution, that destroyed the original pristine environment, and that portended untold problems for all humanity.

A Proposal Regarding Same-Sex Attraction

Posted on January 2, 2008

During the previous month Eric Johnson (SCP Director) has been blogging about same-sex attraction, one of the most significant cultural issues of our day. For the past 26 years, the contemporary fields of psychology and mental health have been leading the way in our culture towards the normalization of homosexuality, and recently there have been voices within those fields that are recommending that graduate program accreditation, licensing of therapists, and even graduation from some programs be conditional upon subscribing to normalization values. However, the Christian tradition has always considered homosexuality to be immoral, and therefore less than God’s design for human life, so Christians in these fields need to think hard about these issues, and advocate vigorously that the leadership in these fields needs to respect communal differences on such complex matters. As one step in this direction, the Society is developing a position paper on the topic. The following statement (some of which includes a summary of the past few blogs) is put forward in the interest of soliciting feedback at this early stage in the process.

A Proposal Regarding Same-Sex Attraction

Christians believe that the Creator of the universe has authority over all that he has made, and that this God has revealed himself and his core intentions for humanity in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures and there gave some basic norms for human life, including some regarding human sexuality. From the first chapter of Genesis, it is evident that the most fundamental distinction in human life is that of male and female—being basic to the image of God (Gen 1:26,27)—and it is God’s intention that the primary human social institution be the family, originating in the union of one man and one woman in marriage, symbolized in the pleasure of their sexual union and usually issuing in the birth and rearing of children.

Sexuality that conforms to our Creator’s intentions for humanity is good. However, most social relations are non-sexual. Human friendships, especially same-sex friendships, are also good and intended by God to contribute to the flourishing of human beings. Human life is vitiated by a fundamental alienation from its Creator that is called sin. Related to this alienation, human life is now disordered in many ways: it is not now the way it is supposed to be. Human sexuality was affected by this disordering, manifested in a variety of human sexual abnormalities, including hypo- or hyperarousal; arousal through violence; sex outside marriage; and sexual arousal by means of persons or objects contrary to God’s intentions, including the same sex, children, animals, or inanimate objects.

In light of God’s law written on the heart (Ro 2:12-15), guilt as a result of same-sex sexual activity (whether actual or imaginary) is the appropriate response of one’s conscience—so long as it is not excessive—and is intended by God to be instrumental in motivating people to undermine their same-sex attraction (SSA) and avoid such activity. Therefore, from a Christian standpoint, such ego-dystonic emotional experience is, in principle, a sign of psychological well-being, rather than pathology.

Christians believe the Bible is inspired by God and provides authoritative guidance for human life and conduct. Some argue that the Bible’s teachings regarding homosexuality are not clear or that they are unscientific and so culturally conditioned that they cannot be trusted to guide contemporary understandings of human sexuality. Such arguments are made seriously, therefore they must be taken seriously, and respectfully addressed. However, a fair and careful reading of the relevant texts of Scripture must lead to the conclusion that homosexuality was understood to be contrary to God’s intentions for human sexuality by the biblical authors, so that contemporary objections cannot alter the Church’s beliefs or practices.

Scripture, however, cannot be read in isolation from God’s damaged created order. Well-designed research into SSA and homosexuality must also be read fairly and carefully. Though research in such controversial areas may be biased, and so must be read with extra care, research into SSA has so far illuminated many of factors that may contribute to it, including genetics; in-utero hormones; the organization and activation of corresponding neurological regions; and facilitative social experiences, including sexual abuse, rape, and same-sex sexual experimentation (as well as social experiences that can contribute to the undermining of SSA).

Nonetheless, the documentation of such factors cannot be used to conclude that same-sex attraction has no inherent moral implications. The morality or immorality of human activity or experience cannot be established on the basis of biological or social influences, since all of human life and experience is necessarily embodied and grounded in neurological structures and is also necessarily socially constructed. Such a conclusion is a non sequitor—it does not follow logically from the empirical evidence.

The Bible, however, is not focused only on human sin and disorder. It was written, more importantly, to communicate the Creator God’s way of reconciliation to God and restoration for human beings through the coming of the Son of God into this disordered world, entering into our suffering and finally taking upon himself the sin of the world in his death, only to be raised from the dead to inaugurate the New Creation (2Co 5:17), and draw others into its power and freedom, and the gradual healing of their souls from sin and sin’s effects.

Christians derive the first principles of their moral thought from Scripture and natural law (which consists of the standards of rationality and morality that can be agreed to by most rational persons around the world). While Scripture will not be persuasive to most of those outside the Christian community, Christians can appeal to the principles of natural law and “right reason” or “common sense,” when seeking to influence public policy. In addition, where possible, reference ought to be made to the problematic worldview assumptions of those communities with whom they interact. For example, the implications of evolutionary theory for sexuality ought to be highlighted, in discussions about the normativity of SSA.

Finally, we in the contemporary Christian church must acknowledge that we have done a poor job of seeking to understand the experience of those with SSA, including our own brothers and sisters. God loves all people, including those with SSA, and seeks their redemption and healing, and this ought to be our primary message. We have too often focused more attention on the sins of those outside the Christian community, than those within. We need to confess our sins of arrogance and judgmentalism, hypocrisy, preferential treatment of those struggling with heterosexual sin, impatience, and cowardice. We have made it almost impossible in most churches for brothers and sisters with SSA to feel welcomed. We call upon God’s people to listen to and learn from their brothers and sisters afflicted with SSA, and help create safe church communities of holy love, nurturance, and accountability, where people with such struggles know they are valued and encouraged to fight the good fight, together with the rest of the body of Christ, all of whom are called to fight against their immoral desires. In fact, we believe we have things to learn from our brothers and sisters who struggle with SSA. We also call for increasingly competent research by Christian psychologists to document the biopsychosocial, ethical, and spiritual dynamics involved in SSA and homosexuality, as well as the power of grace to sustain and gradually heal the souls of God’s people, and we also advocate the proliferation of ex-gay ministries and professional Christian counseling centers so that, along with local churches, the Christian community can offer a continuum of care for those struggling with SSA.

The Temptation of Same-Sex Attraction

Posted on December 3, 2007

[Editor's note: This is the first post for December 2007 by our very own Dr. Eric Johnson, director of the Society for Christian Psychology. He plans a series on homosexuality this month with posts made each Monday.]

What is temptation? Anything that offers to humans an opportunity to sin. Consequently, it is an important psychological category within a Christian framework. To use behavioral terminology, it is a kind of stimulus. But we need better theoretical resources than behaviorism offers, because temptation is more than a generic stimulus, since it comes morally contextualized, loaded with potential negative ethical and spiritual significance. Perhaps we could define temptation as an evil ethicospiritual stimulus that provides an opportunity for sin.

Temptation is an important concept in Scripture and the Christian tradition (see Owen, 1965). In the Bible, from the divine side, temptation has the connotation of “testing,” for God allows it in order to strengthen the faith and virtue of believers. On the other hand, from the side of Satan, it has more the idea of “seducing” humans to sin (Lewis, 1995). Temptation can lead to sin when the tempted person succumbs to it and commits a deed contrary to God’s norms. The Bible opens with the story of the first temptation, by which Adam and Even disobeyed God’s sole prohibition, and became sinners. This narrative indicates that humans were placed by God in an environment where they would be exposed to temptation. Now, after the Fall, humans exist in a permanent state of temptation. In profound contrast to the rest of humanity, Jesus Christ successfully resisted the temptations, he faced when he lived on earth, being “perfected” by them. (Heb 5:8,9), and now he is able to aid believers in their temptations (Heb 4:15,16).

For soul-care purposes, one of most important things for us to remember is that it is not sinful to be tempted. It opens the opportunity to sin but is not itself sin. This follows necessarily from the life of Christ who was “tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin” (Heb 4:15). This point is especially important for people to keep in mind when they are struggling with temptation.

Most often we think of temptation as external and coming from outside of us, whether through Satan or the “world”: someone cuts us off in traffic, we get criticized by our spouse, or we see a hotel advertisement for an erotic movie. But all believers also face another class of temptations: internal temptations, due to our flesh (Gal 5:17-21) or indwelling sin (Ro 7:14-24). Perhaps one of the greatest kinds of suffering imaginable is to be faced with an ongoing, indwelling temptation for years. This is the situation that many of our brothers and sisters face who struggle with same-sex attraction.
Except for those who reject and distort its meaning, the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality as sin is clear (Ro 1:26,27; 1Co 6:9; 1Ti 1:10; see Gagnon, 2001). However, the Bible does not directly address the issue of how to understand same-sex attraction. When a person experiences sexual attraction to persons of the same sex, something disordered has occurred in the region of the brain known as the hypothalamus, where sexual arousal is initiated. Sexual arousal is a physiological state; it cannot be created out of nothing—no one experiences sexual attraction to trees. Consequently, it makes good Christian sense to regard the condition of same-sex attraction as a biologically-based state of temptation that is related to our fallen condition.

What are the benefits of this recognition? First, it is important for those with same-sex attraction to know that simply experiencing it is not itself a sin. It becomes an immoral deed only when one succumbs to it in imaginative action or actual behavior. Rather, same-sex attraction may be better understood as simply evidence of one’s falleness and indwelling sin–indicative of our common human condition and warranting earnest prayer and fresh cleansing–and therefore analogous to any internal temptation. But so long as one doesn’t act on those temptations, one is not committing sin. Second, those without such temptations ought to be extremely sympathetic to the plight of those who struggle with them. What an enormous challenge to have to face such temptation over a prolonged period of time!

The recently published research by Jones & Yarhouse (2007) should come then as encouragement for such believers, for it documents that over time Christians have experienced an undermining of the power of such temptation. They followed 98 persons involved in an ex-gay Christian ministry for as long as three years and found that over a third experienced a “dramatic change in lessening their homosexual orientation” (p. 325), while less than a third experienced no improvement, with the rest somewhere in-between. As the authors point out, such results would be considered positive in research on psychotherapy outcomes, but it is important to note that this research was not done on those involved in psychotherapy, but were simply in an ex-gay ministry. This study is momentous and ought to provide real encouragement for those experiencing same-sex attraction, but it also points to the slow and uneven nature of change with this condition, and therefore the long-term struggle faced by many of those afflicted with this tragic temptation. May God grant them increasing grace in their pursuit of His holiness and wholeness.

References

Gagnon, R.A.J. (2001). The Bible and homosexual practice: Texts and hermeneutics.
Nashville: Abingdon.

Jones, S.L., & Yarhouse, M.A. (2007). Ex-gays? A longitudinal study of religiously
mediated change in sexual orientation. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.

Lewis, P.H. (1995). Temptation. In D.J. Atkinson, D.F. Fields, A. Holmes, & O.
O’Donovan (Eds), New dictionary of Christian ethics and pastoral theology (pp.
837-8). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.

Owen, J. (1965). Of temptation. In W.H. Goold (Ed.), The works of John Owen (Vol. 6,
pp. 88-151). Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust.

The effects of sin on the science of psychology

Posted on May 21, 2007

I 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.

Designed by Business Broker